< December 14	December 16 >

December 15

Template:Abercrombie & Fitch brand

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. While it is good to standardize infoboxes, this is not a reason to delete in itself. That said, there is some precedent for using different infoboxes that are more specific, as in this case. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstandard variant of Template:Infobox company. Used only on articles about brands of Abercrombie & Fitch stores. This is unnecessary and should be replaced with a standard infobox. — Rhobite (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - unnecessary and redundant. mirageinred (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Template:Infobox company. JPG-GR (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ please avoid branching off templates. –Pomte 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The template has unique fields not covered by ((Infobox Company)); may be warranted. –Pomte 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, it can not be! It places the main information of the Company and its brands. It is ridiculous to delete it. It is like saying that you should the delete the templates for characters of other series. I say no. Let more make opinions before deciding finally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan1 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 December 2007
Delete, redundant and unnecessary; only used on five pages, just use the regular box AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I counter the “redundant and unnecessary” point – if it is used on five pages, then it is considered to be useful for its purpose. What this template deletion proposal seems to me is the reduction of relevant information to the article. May I point out that 1) The template is indeed helpful by providing more information (as opposed to less), 2) Not completely redundant, 3) Can be modified to be satisfied for NPOV - at the current state, I do not see any marketing elements attached to this template that specifically helps promote ANF. Wikhull (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - The template organizes the information in a manner easily to view. It is futher designed to go with the Company and its brands. As well, the A&F article is lonmg and finding the information on the template (without it) will be tedious to visitors! The actual template for companies lists information found in the article as well, this one though is specifically made for A&F. It should be kept. User talk: Hpfan1 13:24 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - please try not to vote more than once. Thanks. Rhobite (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but only for use on the Abercrombie & Fitch sub-articles, not on the Abercrombie & Fitch article itself, which should use the standard ((infobox company)). I think this is a fairly harmless, if nonstandard, template to use on the articles for A&F's brand lines; but it shouldn't replace the standard infobox where that one definitely is more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Theme," "apparel type," "consumer age," and "color scheme" seem rather superfluous. mirageinred (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as infoboxes are best kept standardized. Infoboxes contain useful information already present in articles, but if this information is not uniform across most applicable articles, it may as well be superfluous trivia. The section A&F#Other Abercrombie & Fitch Co. brands seems to cover the extra information afforded by Template:Abercrombie & Fitch brand in a more organized way. Gracenotes^T § 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have read what Terraxos has posted, and I agree. It seems completely reasonable. I used to stand on leaving it for all brands, but I agree, this template should only be used for the A&F brands...A&F should use the regular Company Template. User talk: Hpfan1 17:05 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Appears to be more directed towards the interests of the owner of the brand than towards the building of an encyclopedia. Template:Infobox company is more than adequate for the latter purpose. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Uw-notcensored3

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates encourage users to treat content disputes concerning sexually explicit images as vandalism, violating WP:AGF. Even if we were to assume that the "not censored" section of WP:NOT prohibits some removals of such images from relevant articles under certain circumstances, such policy violations would not imply that the image removals are done in a deliberate effort to damage Wikipedia, as the use of the term "vandalism" implies: per Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Note that even many fundamental policy violations, such as the insertion of original research into articles, are not inherently considered to be vandalism. While the removal of sexually explicit images could be treated as vandalism if done without a non-frivolous explanation, template:test1a and higher-level warning templates for unexplained content removals are adequate for this purpose. John254 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest that the warnings be reworded and instead of referencing ((Uw-vandalism4)), it should instead reference ((uw-delete4)). However, by the time someone would receive this warning, they are likely in a full blown edit war so other warning templates may apply. --Farix (Talk) 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the templates could certainly be softened, and references to vandalism removed; however, the result might simply duplicate the initial warning template:Uw-notcensored1, or the second warning template:Uw-notcensored2. John254 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ((Uw-notcensored3)) and ((Uw-notcensored4)) are the third and fourth in a series of warnings. At minimum, the user receiving one of these warnings should have received ((Uw-notcensored2)) previously (and probably ((Uw-notcensored1)) before that), thus person now already knows that Wikipedia is not censored and therefore continuing to try to censor things is an intentional act. Also, is there a reason the issues the nominator has with these templates weren't raised on the relevant talk page? I suggest the nominator withdraw this TfD and join the discussion on the wording there. Anomie ⚔ 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I ultimately have to say keep this and reword to avoid references to vandalism. ((uw-delete3)) and ((uw-delete4)) does a good job at warning editors about removing content without making references to vandalism. I don't see how ((uw-notcensored3)) can't do the same. --Farix (Talk) 19:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though template:uw-delete3 and template:uw-delete4 don't specifically contain the word "vandalism", it is clear from their language that they are, in fact, vandalism warnings, and would be inappropriate for use in a content dispute. If a user is removing sexually explicit content from relevant articles without a non-frivolous explanation, the templates in the uw-delete series provide suitable warnings, as for any other unexplained removals of apparently legitimate content. The purpose underlying template:Uw-notcensored3 and template:Uw-notcensored4 seems to be to treat legitimate content disputes concerning explicit material as vandalism -- a purpose which is maintained so long as the templates warn of imminent blocking due to the content of a user's edits, whether or not the word "vandalism" is specifically included. Note that content disputes do not become vandalism on the part of one of the disputants simply because it is alleged that their edits constitute policy violations. John254 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the first in a series and the editor would have been made well aware of the issues by the time it gets to a lvl 3, so by this point it is vandalism. All templates have the potential to be used in content dispute so this is a strawman argument, and is the fault of the issuing editor not the template itself. I disagree with John's reading of "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." if an image has concensus to be included within an article, then an editor is a vandal if the removal is being done because of personal beliefs or standards, without discussion. Also I echo Anomie's point above, WP:UW/WP:UTM should have been notified of this AfD. ^Khukri 08:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ((Uw-notcensored3)) template is third in a series of escalating warnings starting from ((Uw-notcensored1)). By the time a ((Uw-notcensored3)) is given to an user, one would assume that the user had been previously notified about his/her edits that AGF before receiving such a warning. If the user continues after that, then it is vandalism and is disruptive to Wikipedia. A reword of the level one warning may be needed so that it is less bitey but otherwise they do a pretty good job of explaining what was wrong. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ((test1)) and following is definitely a bad choice in this case. Redirecting lv4 to ((uw-delete4)) makes sense though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contributions by André Pusey

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as author request. If you would like the subpage in your userspace deleted please add ((db-userreq)) or leave a note on my talk page. matt br 09:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my userpage template and I take responsibility to say that it has no use and must be deleted. Andre666 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oblivion

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elder Scrolls games already uses all the links in this template. The pages that currently use the Oblivion template would be served better with the Elder Scrolls games template. Also, my apologies if I've done anything wrong, I've followed Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion as best I could. Ong elvin (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely redundant. –Pomte 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for separate, redundant AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. It just seems pointless. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, y'know what, I didn't even need to have nominated it here. I've randomly found Wikipedia:Deprecated_and_orphaned_templates which would have suited it just fine. Meh... it's here already, but at least I know where to go next time. xD Ong elvin (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABA White

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ABA no longer has a White Conference and therefore the template is obsolete and redundant. — Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obsolete. –Pomte 08:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and unused AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't we redirect or something? For all we know, at some time the White conference might exist again. Would be a shame not to have the old edits in its history in that case... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current fiction

The result of the debate was deletion. Poorly worded, sparingly used, redundant. Articles about new things need help. This is not a new concept. A box with one of those bright stripes doesn't need to tell us that. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this template up for deletion because its usage has been makeshift. Despite what had appeared to be initial support for this template's usage following the deletion of the spoiler tag, it has not found widespread attention. Now, there is no timetable for the presence of the template in an article -- sometimes the templates have been removed months afterward. There are far too many ways to determine the duration, all of them subjective, and considering the pace of today's commercial releases, discussion on a case-by-case basis would be implemented too briefly. In addition, it's been determined that section headings define the content of that particular section, such as the plot summary. The current template has gone through revision after revision to find suitable wording, and it's apparent that it continues to touch on wording similar to that of the spoiler tag. The only difference is that it is on the top of the page and supposedly has a timer. There has been zero resolution, zero middle ground in finding a way to implement this template. The lack of usage, the subjective determination of duration, the unnecessary spoiler-esque wording all show that this template is not a boon for Wikipedia. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems more of an attempt at replacing the spoiler tag than anything that might actually be useful. I can't really see any usefulness in this template at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see any usefulness in the ((current spaceflight)) template? --Pixelface (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. Most of the other temporal templates have wording to the effect, "Details may change as the [event] progresses", which makes sense for an ongoing event like a spaceflight mission, an ongoing disaster, a national election, etc. The Current Fiction template originally appeared to have the same intent, but how it would apply to a film, novel or short story is problematic. These are static events: the book is published, the movie premieres. It said, "It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the film it describes", which would fit for an episodic work, but nothing else (but this still seems to be focused on alerting the reader that they may encounter spoilers; was that an original intent, CBM?). The accompanying Information box states that it might work for a film that's still in production ("in-progress or future work of fiction"), which I think is a pertinent situation, except that contradicts "Current".

(I correct myself on that last statement. For a film with an article in place long before the premiere, I could see a template that has the same wording as the other temporals: "Details may change as film production progresses.", which is used only up to the premiere.)

In November the wording changed to variations of "It may contain detailed information on the plot and ending of the work of fiction it describes, and may lack the perspective for critical commentary." Not really sure how that works for a film or book, except maybe to hint that the Plot description may be incomplete, and a balanced response may not be evident (but there are many examples of fiction where the "final" cinematic or literary significance takes years or decades to evolve, so how long do you keep a "current" tag on it?)? Now the wording is "It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, contain speculation, and focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the work of fiction." If more copy is needed to balance the article or complete the plot description (or any section), then use ((Expand-section)) or ((Missing information)). That leaves "and ending of the work of fiction", and why single that out for mention, unless we're back to the spoiler issue?

To crystallize: the other temporal templates appear to make sense for their respective topics, but this template would seem to only apply to a dynamic work, such as a miniseries or episodic TV show; Static works like films, video games, and publications don't fit. So if the argument was going to be, "If it's alright for space missions, then why not for films", there's no similarity between the two situations being addressed.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ((current spaceflight)) template indicates a vessel recently entered space and details in the article may change. The ((current game)) template indicates an article documents a current event in video gaming and information in the article may change. The ((current fiction)) template indicates a fictional work was recently released and details in the article may change. There is a similarity between Temporal templates. It's not apples and oranges. It's Braeburn and Red Delicious. --Pixelface (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't call most recently released videogames "static." --Pixelface (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse the word "recent" with "current." The Spaceflight template does not refer to vessels that "recently entered space", but to ongoing missions. Take a look at some of the linked articles: there are missions that have been going on for years (i.e. launches are in no way "recent") and rate the tag because events are still unrolling as the craft continues to operate. The Games template refers to "current" (i.e. ongoing) events, not "recent" events. And yes, the content of the video game is static once it is released; the article will continue to develop as reviews occur, but that happens with every article.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, ((current spaceflight)) refers to ongoing missions. What about ((recent death)), another temporal template? Temporal templates do not just refer to ongoing events. They typically indicate that information may change rapidly in an article. Category:Current events says "When used properly, it invites any user to fill in the Wiki community on the latest information about the subject of an article." --Pixelface (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this brings us back to the significance of the message (uh, "the medium is the message"? Where's Marshall when you need him?). I have nothing against a Recent Fiction alert tag if it serves a purpose. Based on what the various wordings have been, I haven't seen a raison d'etre yet: (1) if it's to say that sections may be incomplete so tread cautiously, we have other existing tags that are more versatile to handle that; (2) if it's to act as a spoiler alert, my views on that are known; (3) to just notify that something is an ongoing, dynamic work of fiction, then the application will be narrow / that something is recent, the wording (i.e. "current") is misleading, but pointless where there are cascading release dates.

However, you do bring up a possibility I overlooked. Changing the message to "It may lack real-world perspective and verifiable sources, contain speculation, trivia lists, and focus primarily on details about the plot and characters. Editors are invited to expand sections with balanced, sourced information." Place an expiration date parameter on it so a bot can remove it, say, 30 days after the film's general release (or 60-90 days for a book), and that could be useful. The tag then is dual-purposed: the reader is alerted that the article is possibly dynamic and incomplete, and editors are alerted to fix any issues. (This raises an issue I have about many of our maintenance tags, BTW: many don't take such a dual-audience approach. For example, the much-used "refimprove" tag alerts editors that sources are needed, but ignores the need of alerting the more plentiful "readers" to verifiability impacts. The tag should have a statement that warns readers that information may be inaccurate . . . .) Thanks for the idea.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsuitable wording is not a reason to delete a template. And I don't think removing a template from all but one article before listing it for deletion is a good faith move. --Pixelface (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions show no sign that there is wording that can be sustained, thus I am nominating this to see if we even need to use this. As for my removals of the template, the template was used in articles whose fictional topics had been out for a while or were simply ongoing -- hardly a one-time "recently released" step. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template's talk page is the place to discuss the wording, not TFD. And there appears to be a consensus that 2 months is an acceptable time period to keep the tag on a page. --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to discuss the wording. I'm looking to see if there could be consensus to delete this template and forego the matter of figuring out the wording altogether. As for the "2 months" determination, my removals were from approximately a dozen articles, none of which seemed prominent. There's been quite a bit of media released in the past two months all over the world, yet the template has not been implemented in their articles. It's just not widespread, and it does not indicate anything useful. I'll make this my final response to you as I'll let the other editors weigh in. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is barely used and is a constant source of dispute. In virtually all cases a standard cleanup tag would be at least as effective as this tag, without all the drama. Chaz ^Beckett 12:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than the above points, which I mostly agree with, I think the template is simply "not true". Not every article about a recently released work of fiction focuses on the plot, nor do they all write from an in universe perspective. Regardless, we have the article improvement amboxes for that. The other "current events" templates are (mostly) true for every event: information may change rapidly, something Wikipedia editors can do nothing about. This is apparently an apology that in some cases the article may be bad, with a covered-up spoiler warning too. User:Krator (t c) 13:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a renewed spoiler template. The current fiction template is redundant and doesn't do what people who want spoiler warnings want it to anyway. Because the current fiction template was part of the justification of removing the spoiler template, that template, which had much wider support (that TfD had more Keep votes than delete votes, and was added by a lot more people than it was removed), should be restored instead. Otherwise this is another example of a false compromise - the spoiler template was removed from sites en masse because of a supposed compromise that supposedly allowed for it in certain cases, but those removing them in practice never let it remain on an article. Then in the spoiler TfD, current fiction was supposed to be a compromise to the not insignificant number of people who want some form of spoiler warning, but again, doesn't do the job. Now it's suggested the compromise template be removed and replaced with nothing. That's not consensus, and there's no spirit of compromise evidenced for those who have an opposing view on spoilers. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. The spoiler template at least can be a better vehicle for compromise, with clearly defined areas where it should and should not go. Wandering Ghost (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it is a false compromise unless an editor from the previous TFD endorsed this particular template then later nominated it. I've never favored this template based on the reasons I've presented above. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, but it is a place where consensus can be renewed. This template has not been directly evaluated for deletion, but based on its unsuccessful track record, I'm seeking consensus to see if a lot of grief can't be saved. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, you said this template's usage has been "makeshift", but TFD is not the place to discuss the wording. You have admitted "I'm not looking to discuss the wording." You said "it has not found widespread attention" but you removed it from all but 1 article earlier. I later added it to 13 film articles and 9 videogame articles and ChazBeckett removed it from all but 6 articles. Please do not remove a template from all but one article and say there is a "lack of usage." It makes you look disingenuous. New fictional works are being released every day so the ((current fiction)) tag will always have future use. The place to determine how long the tag should remain in an article is Template talk:Current fiction, not here. If the template is worded like a spoiler tag, the wording can be changed. --Pixelface (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You added tags to articles where they didn't belong. I removed them from the articles that didn't have the problem described in the tag. I do have to wonder how much thought was put into your tagging given that you added 22 tags in 11 minutes. Chaz ^Beckett 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template to articles about recently released fictional works — that is where the tag belongs. The wording about an articles having "problems" was a recent addition to the template. I looked at the 2007 in film article and tagged articles about films that were released in the past 4 weeks. I looked at the 2007 in video gaming article and tagged articles about videogames that were released in the past 4 weeks. When a film or videogame had an earlier release date, I did not place the ((current fiction)) tag in the article. The tag is for articles about recently released fictional works. The wording about an article having problems is not the criteria for placing the tag. The criteria is the name of the tag: current fiction. --Pixelface (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread what you just wrote. The template message is what a reader (or editor on the prowl for work to do) sees. Based on your statement, I could create a template called 2007 Articles and no one should have a problem if the wording is "Articles created in 2002"? Apparently, my practice of actually reading the template documentation (both template page and Talk page) before applying the tag is unnecessary? I guess I should just add ((Plot)) to Plot sections because the names match, although ((Expand-section)) is what I really wanted?
Jim Dunning | talk 04:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template message is what a reader sees. If you created the template ((2007 Articles)) and it originally said "Articles created in 2007" and some editors came along and changed the wording to "Articles created in 2002", the new wording would not be a reason to delete the template. The wording can be changed back and the template protected if needed. The name of the template and the initial purpose of the template is what matters. Yes, the template documentation can help readers know where to place the tag. The template documentation for ((current fiction)) is relatively new, added on November 10, 2007 by Ned Scott, while the TFD for the ((spoiler)) template was ongoing. The template documentation for ((current fiction)) says the tag should be put "on those articles where containing changing and future information is an issue in some way." The 13 film articles I tagged and 9 videogame articles I tagged all meet that criteria. I was using the tag for it's intended purpose, tagging articles about recently released fictional works. The wording in the ((current fiction)) template about an article having problems is relatively new — added November 15, 2007 after the ((spoiler)) template was deleted. On December 15, 2007, I changed the wording of the ((current fiction)) template to the wording that was there from October 31 to November 14 — the wording that was there when multiple editors argued in favor of it at the TFD for the ((spoiler)) template, the wording that was there when JzG said the ((current fiction)) template had consensus. After JzG said that, Phil Sandifer, who argued that the ((current fiction)) template was "superior in every regard" to the ((spoiler)) template, went to Current fiction and then wanted to change the wording of the template. After I changed the wording on December 15, 2007 back to the wording from October 31, 2007, ChazBeckett reverted me. I reverted that. Then ChazBeckett reverted that. Then Erik nominated this template for deletion. Erik said he doesn't care about the wording. --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recent becomes old news in no time at all. And this template is no good at all, since people can forget when it becomes old news. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - it remains the only version of spoiler tagging that has something resembling a claim to consensus, but that's not necessarily a good thing for it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Five weeks ago you said this template was "superior in every regard" to the spoiler template. Why are you neutral now? --Pixelface (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better than a shitty idea does not necessarily mean a good idea. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how the ((current fiction)) template is superior in every regard to the ((spoiler)) template? --Pixelface (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a glorified spoiler warning. Alientraveller (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument over the template's wording and does not belong here. --Pixelface (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a template but it's wording?
Jim Dunning | talk 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's name and it's purpose. I could change the ((fact)) template to display "Why is this rubbish in the article?" and then I could say, "Wow, look at that horrible wording!" The point is, the wording of templates can be changed. A discussion about whether a template should exist should focus on what purpose it serves, not how it's currently worded. The wording can't be changed if it's deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If editors coming here are reviewing how many articles link to Template:Current fiction, be aware that there may be fluctuations in that number due to behind-the-scenes editing on both sides. This artificial number, whether low or high, may not be the best gauge. As Pixelface mentioned before, I removed templates prior to TFD. For the sake of full disclosure: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. For the most part, the template was either expired or poorly implemented (such as being at a list of characters article). Before my removals, there were no more than 30 templates being used. I don't know if there's a way to provide evidence of a template's widespread usage or lack thereof, but I figured this was worth noting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a temporal template so of course it's usage is going to fluctuate. New fictional works are being released every day and more time passes since previous releases of fictional works. --Pixelface (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely reword. The template as it stands is silly: it says "this article might be rubbish but we can't be bothered to actually read it to ascertain exactly what is rubbish about it or use a more specific tag". If it was based on Template:Current (e.g. "This article documents a recently released work of fiction. Information may change rapidly."), and added "Please note that the article reveals the ending and plot twists" (as per WP:SPOILER), then it would actually have a point of its own. Cop 663 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:SPOILER reads, "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." The added wording of ending and plot twists would make this template like the spoiler template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to the wording in WP:SPOILER won't get you anywhere, because the wording of that guideline is under discussion and the guideline is currently protected from editing. The statement you mention was written by Kusma. Kusma reverted WP:SPOILER on November 15, 2007 to a prior version (diff). The prior version was from October 12, 2007 (diff) (oldid), the version that Kusma mentioned in the TFD for the ((spoiler)) template. The October 12, 2007 version was also the September 13, 2007 version, written by Kusma (diff). You can see a diff between the November 15, 2007 and September 13, 2007 version here (there is none). Again, if the ((current fiction)) template is worded like the spoiler template, the wording can be changed and TFD is not the proper venue for that. If the ((current fiction)) template is part of the functioning of the spoiler guideline, it cannot be listed for deletion separately. --Pixelface (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read the whole of WP:SPOILER, which continues, "As an exception, some recently released work of fiction may carry a ((current fiction)) tag, which is usually removed a certain period of time after the work has been published". If this template is deleted then WP:SPOILER will also have to be renegotiated... if you're prepared to do that, go for it, but rather you than me... Cop 663 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; I suppose the so-called exception exists because of the endorsement of this template in the previous TFD. Regardless, though, I feel my points about its lack of usage and subjective implementation don't warrant this template's existence. This really has only seemed to exist on conceptual grounds without actual interest in applying it. I'm advocating a conservative approach -- if something is wrong with an article, there are quite a few templates to implement. Here, though, there's no genuine information or advice that's being imparted, since section headings identify their respective content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use the ((current fiction)) template all the time. But every time I've used it it's been removed almost immediately by Liquidfinale, jonny-mt, and ChazBeckett. Temporal templates do not always signal that something is wrong with an article. Temporal templates often signal that an event is currently happening or that an event recently happened. --Pixelface (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I haven't removed any of your placements since November 15, when you went a little overboard with it (my comments on Pixelface's talk page, his comments on my talk page). --jonny-m t 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, you haven't removed any since then. But I still don't think I went overboard. If a fictional work was recently released, I tagged it. At the time I did not consider the earliest release date, but I probably should have. --Pixelface (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pixelface comment above. And it seems that the tag is not the issue. First we should reolve the policy guidance and then reword the template. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the intent is to alert readers that because the film's impending or recent release may result in fluid article content, then there are other tags that handle that (cleanup, refimprove, etc.). If its purpose is to be a spoiler alert, then it's unnecessary in WP. Also, the lack of consensus on or sheer impossibility (due to multiple release dates; or, "if you haven't seen it before, it's 'new' to you") of defining "recent" just shows how unusable this tag is.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I am surprised that this template did not get traction. I thought it would be used as a spoiler-warning-with-expiration-date (and it was used for that pretty successfully during the last Harry Potter release, where people were very sensitive about spoilers). Currently, there seems to be no comparably large case of people demanding "spoiler protection" but I wonder whether we might need something like this again in the future (or drown in handmade spoiler warnings). Personally, I don't think we should have any spoiler warnings, but a mild warning that does not influence or disrupt the article flow and is removed after a month or two is something I can live with (as I said when I rewrote the spoiler guideline to that effect). Kusma (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-to-mostly-harmless - I deleted lots of instances of ((spoiler)) ("Warning! Plot summary contains plot elements!"), but I can live with this existing. As Kusma notes, it was not-intolerably applied when the last Harry Potter book was fresh and reasonable numbers of interested fans could have been presumed not to have read the book yet. Also, keeping this might quell the repeated complaints (in the face of widespread lack of interest) of spoiler fans that they wuz robbed, though the evidence seems to be that nothing will - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Kevin and Pixel. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -while better than ((spoiler)) ever was, it's still kinda crappy with ambigious usefulness and uses. Might as well get rid of it and save us some grief. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a spoiler tag by other means. And we've had that debate. Eusebeus (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (1) an attempt to recreate the embarrassing spoiler tag, tack-welded onto (b) a weaselly disclaimer that this article probably doesn't know what it's talking about. Either reason would be sufficient; together, they are a surfeit of deletability. ➥the Epopt (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spoiler tag wasn't as embarrassing as 3 admins edit-warring over it on the Three Little Pigs article after this email. --Pixelface (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is utterly useless. Template:Spoiler was arguably useful if you didn't want to get spoiled, but this is just some lame mixture of a disclaimer (which we generally don't do), a current tag (which are meant to be applied when there is heavy editing taking place), and a cleanup tag (does a poor job of specifying what needs cleaned up). --- RockMFR 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, that was a nice and concise breakdown of the template's issues, including some points that I didn't cover. Appreciate your perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ((current fiction)) template is no more a disclaimer than ((recent death)). And the "cleanup" language was put there by editors who haven't even argued to keep it. --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I've tried to stay neutral on this, but this really seems like a snow job. First, the current fiction tag was offered as a suitable replacement for the spoiler tag, which kept some who would have been pro-spoiler warning tag to withdraw their objections to the tag's deletion. Then, shortly after the spoiler tag is deleted (without consensus, let's face it), this one is put up for deletion. The conversation is still going on. Trying to make an end run around policy and the spirit of Wikipedia does nothing to diminish the suspicions of those who suspect an anti-spoiler warning cabal (an unfortunate and divisive appearence of impropriety, I must say, even if no real conspiracy exists) and quite frankly, it sickens me. Constructive, logical discussion takes time; but time is the one thing that those who oppose spoiler tags won't give to anyone trying to engage them (including neutral people like myself). Really, people—this is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a pissing contest. For shame. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several reasons that seem to form the core of the "keep" argument. First, it's been claimed that problem is not the tag itself, but its wording. However, this tag is only its wording and nothing more. It serves no purpose other than to display its message to readers. There's no sign that there's even a remote chance of finding wording that will achieve consensus. One side wants to use it to resurrect the deleted spoiler tag, while the other is content with keeping it as mostly-harmless, but completely useless disclaimer/pardon our mess tag. Unlike articles, where works in progress are almost always still useful to a reader, a tag has zero utility to a reader if it isn't a final product.
A second reason that's been provided for keeping the tag is that in rare, exceptional circumstances a spoiler warning will actually be appropriate (ex. final Harry Potter book). In these cases, where there's a compelling reason and a strong consensus for such a warning, a custom (non-templated) warning could easily be used. There's no reason to have a templated tag for a situation that may arise once every few years.
Finally, it's been asserted that there's some need to tag an article if its subject is a recently released work of fiction, regardless of whether the article needs improvement. RockMFR did a great job of describing (above) why this is nonsensical. If an article needs cleanup, we already have plenty of cleanup tags. A current work of fiction is in no way similar to a current event, where the very nature of the subject can change over the course of days, hours or even minutes. Chaz ^Beckett 13:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording can be changed. You won't find consensus on its wording in a TFD. The ((current fiction)) template was offered as an alternative to the ((spoiler)) template in the TFD for the spoiler template, and the closing admin said as much. A ((current fiction)) tag is as useless as a ((recent death)) tag. Custom spoiler warnings will be removed, that's evident. The ((current fiction)) tag was never intended to be a cleanup tag. It's wording was changed to turn it into a cleanup tag after the TFD for the spoiler template. So the template should not be evaluated on the "cleanup" aspect. Temporal templates often indicate that information in an article may change rapidly, and that is the case for newly released fictonial works. --Pixelface (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - If you bother to look at the archives at Wikipedia_talk:SPOILER you'll see consensus against "homemade" (i.e. in-text/non-templated) spoiler warnings and promises from some editors to vigorously hunt down and remove them. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There certainly is consensus against widespread use of homemade (or any other type) of spoiler tags. I was referring to "rare, exceptional circumstances" where strong consensus would already exist for some sort of spoiler warning for a specific article (think Harry Potter 7). Templates are used simply as a convienence, so frequently used messages can be easily added. Since this type of spoiler warning would be rarely (if ever) used, there's no need to have it exist in the form of a template. Chaz ^Beckett 14:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is widespread consensus against homemade spoiler warnings; the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:SPOILER, however, was clearly for the existence of spoiler warnings (and the spoiler tag) but with far more strictness regarding their use than had previously existed. This was a compromise, to be sure, but that's what reaching consensus is all about. With editors promising to remove any and all homemade spoiler warnings, however, your idea seems to be a non-starter (particularly since those promising deletion do not believe that even Harry Potter deserves a tag). Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I have voted for keeping this template, I could also support Wandering Ghost's position that this template may be okay to delete if a new spoiler tag were allowed. Perhaps the new spoiler tag would be a mix of the new and old. It could go at the top of an article, like the current fiction tag, and it could say something along the lines of "This article is about a recently released work of fiction and may contain spoilers (or significant plot details, or whatever wording we find appropriate)." There was some resistance to such a move early on in the spoiler tag debate, but since the current fiction tag was offered as a compromise, such resistance no longer seems relevant. (Sorry if this contains some ideas more relevant to WP:SPOILER, but at this point the two tags are inextricably linked.) I could also support the "keep, but completely reword" option, though this may end up amounting to the same thing. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This tag should either be a spoiler warning or not be a spoiler warning. At the moment, it's a half-assed, apologetic thing, that tries to casually mention spoilers at the end in the hope that no-one will notice. Do we find it acceptable to put spoiler warnings on recently released fiction or not? That's the crux of the matter and determines whether or not we keep this tag. Cop 663 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right: this was a half-assed end-around to the spoiler issue. The only way I'd support a fiction spoiler warning is with a single tag at the top (or just after the Lead). None of this rearranging copy just to protect some person's sense of surprise, and no placing spoilers within the Plot or in other sections. All or nothing.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non sequitur, Jim. The whole point of a spoiler tag (in my opinion, at least) is to provide a warning so that editors don't have to move copy in an effort to corral all of the spoilers into a single section. After all, nothing prohibits several sections from being marked off with the tags. Did copy moving happen anyway? Apparently so. But that is a problem with editors, not the tag. Still, I find your suggestion of a tag at the top of an article to be a reasonable compromise in this matter. Perhaps it is even an all-around better solution. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim's suggestion of a single spoiler tag at the top of current fiction articles is the only sensible compromise that could come out of this discussion. Cop 663 (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - There are already too many big and ugly templates on this site. --YellowTapedR (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that a subjective sense of aesthetic value fails as a logical reason to keep or delete a tag. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The issue that should be addressed is not the presence or absence of a spoiler template but rather the overall treatment of spoilers on Wikipedia. While I'm not wild about either spoiler warnings or this particular template, I'm of the opinion that the deeper issues at WT:SPOILER need to be settled before the appropriateness of a spoiler warning-esque template on Wikipedia is addressed. As it currently stands, ((Current fiction)) is a central point for debate about spoilers on Wikipedia, and deleting it would be detrimental to the (admittedly slow) discussions at WT:SPOILER. In addition, without any clearcut consensus regarding the treatment of spoilers in articles, it would most likely resurface in another form and start the process over again, proving any deletion to be a stopgap measure at best. --jonny-m t 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the template, I can speak to its history, although my perspective may be limited. The template was created entirely to be a spoiler warning, not to warn about other article quality issues. It was an attempt to find compromise between the editors who wanted inline spoiler warnings and those who wanted no warnings at all. Neither of those groups ever accepted the current fiction template, although other some other editors approved of it and it got some use. So yes, it was just a glorified spoiler tag. I don't think the rewording to focus on article quality was helpful. I would support deletion of a template with the current wording, and am more neutral about a current fiction template with the previous "spoilers here" message. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's as well to flag articles concerning recently released fiction because they do benefit greatly from a little attention to matters such as publishing details, revenue, reviews and the like, which emerge in spats over a relatively brief period immediately preceding, and in the period following, official publication. This template is as useful as any for the purpose. If it's not used much, perhaps putting a note on the pages or relevant wikiprojects might help. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, wouldn't all articles concerning recently released X benefit from more attention to details? For example, is there anything specific to fiction that wouldn't apply to non-fiction? Also, what would you think about placing this tag (or a similar one) on the talk page, where it could still place the article into a category? Chaz ^Beckett 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your problem seems to be with temporal templates in general. --Pixelface (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, not at all. Why would you assume this? Chaz ^Beckett 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those who think keeping the template is a good idea, let's look at its actual implementation:

It may contain detailed information on the characters, plot, and ending of the work of fiction it describes.

How is this any better than the spoiler warnings we just removed? Instead of warning about a specific section, we're warning the reader that anything in the article could spoil them. The article is titled SUBJECT NAME, so it will contain details about the subject. Here's the other revision:

It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary. It may focus primarily on details about the plot and characters, including the ending or plot twists.

Here, I think the reader can read the TOC and review the breadth of existing sections. If a reader sees that Production is only a paragraph long or that Plot is sixteen paragraphs long, I think the reader can surmise where the focus lies. The second sentence goes back to the point I made about the initial revision -- how is it not worse than the spoiler tags? It says, "Spoilers could be ANYWHERE in the article!"

Secondly, this template is supposed to be attached to articles about recently released fiction, does it still apply to articles that already meet the criteria? There is no relation between "recently released" and the criteria that it sets forth -- there are many articles that fail to meet the criteria, and the articles have existed for years. I work in future films, and an article like I Am Legend (film) clearly meets the criteria. I'm sorry, but why is it the assumption that if a reader comes to an article on a recently released fiction, he or she won't be expecting any plot detail? The article is what it is, past, present, or future -- if there are problems with the article, like Plot being too long or if a personally derived Themes exists, we have the appropriate templates to use. This template has a disjointed purpose -- "recently released" and its criteria do not match at all. This poor justification, including the ambivalent implementation, make this template utterly unrealistic for any purpose whatsoever. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the wording of this template can be changed. It's for tagging recently released fictional works. Any other wording can be decided at Template talk:Current fiction. Why should I Am Legend (film) have a ((future film)) tag before it's released and not a ((current fiction)) tag for a few weeks after it's released? The ((current fiction)) tag indicates that information in an article may change rapidly. What do you think the criteria is for placing the ((current fiction)) tag? I think it's obvious that the criteria is articles about recently released fictional works. The ((current fiction)) tag serves the same purpose that the ((future film)) tag serves, only the ((current fiction)) tag is used after ((future film)) is removed. As more information becomes available, the article may change rapidly. --Pixelface (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current fiction is not at all the equivalent of current events -- the article is not going to change rapidly like some of the "not-news" articles that we get like the University of Florida Taser incident. Articles of current fiction develop over time because there is not an abruptness of news alerts -- many can easily be improved leading up to the topic's release given enough effort. If anything, we should just link to the particular style guideline of that work (WP:MOSFILM, for instance) and encourage improvement based on that guideline, not nurse the readership in our bosom as if they are too infantile to comprehend the content of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"not nurse the readership in our bosom as if they are too infantile to comprehend the content of the article." Please. The same can be said about ((future film)) or ((recent death)). Temporal templates should encourage editors to work on an article. Having said that, I favor the deletion of this template and the creation of 3 new templates that I have mentioned below. --Pixelface (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, you've employed one of the standard strawman arguments that has been deconstructed (at length) at WT:SPOILER. "Plot detail" is not synonomous with "spoilers." One can expect one but not the other (or, at least, a warning for the other). I'm sure it's not on purpose, but this sort of conflation will only complicate these discussions. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand -- plot detail doesn't equal spoilers, it encompasses spoilers. Spoilers could very well be any amount of plot detail, not just the ending. Some may want to go into the film knowing the basic premise, some don't want to know a thing at all. How can we purport at all to know where to draw the line? (No, reviews do not have a universal voice in drawing that line -- they can vary just as much.) Wikipedia needs to be dynamic toward an accumulative historical perspective, not to make half-hearted, confused and all-too-brief attempt to "warn" the reader that the article could be about the very topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences one and three are in conflict, Erik. If plot detail encompasses, but does not equal, spoilers then we are already recognizing—however vaguely—a distinction between, say, the basic premise of a film and a genuine "spoiler." As for the strawman, you repeat it in the last sentence: spoiler warnings are not notices that an article is about the topic at hand. That fact is obvious. But it is not as obvious that the article will expose plot twists or other such details (certainly not every article does). Given that, such a characterization is both inaccurate and abusive (bordering on ad hominem). This is where familiarity with the discussion at WT:SPOILER would come in handy: the whole issue of how to decide what is or is not a spoiler has been hashed and rehashed. My own suggestion, which I still find quite reasonable, is to eliminate the extreme positions ("everything is a spoiler!" and "nothing is a spoiler!") and go to work on the middle. We can start with obvious examples of spoilers and work with a family-resemblance style criterion (à la some of the more popular constitutive theories of aesthetics) to draw a practical, even if fuzzy, line of demarcation. Is this more difficult then simply eliminating spoiler warnings altogether? Of course it is. Laziness, however, is not a valid reason for deleting a tag or changing a guideline. And at the end of the day, this is my interest in the current debate: a great deal of resistance to the spoiler tag (or any possible replacement) seems to be motivated by an aversion to making difficult decisions. But this is an abdication of our responsibilities as Wikipedia editors. The problem is not the tag or the guideline, it is our failure to do our jobs. And that is something I hate to see around here. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're more optimistic than I am, Postmodern Beatnik, but I perceive the array of fictional topics as far too varied to implement anything consistent. It'd be great if a solution could be found for everyone (I dream of coding that would permit an "unhide" of the Plot section after the first five lines or so -- something to that effect). However, my issue with this template is that it keeps circuitous discussions going where like you said, issues have been hashed and rehashed with no progress. Instead, we could be doing the job of encouraging real-world context for these fictional topics, which is what Wikipedia should have in detail. I suppose this TFD was an attempt at cutting the Gordian Knot to get back to the content itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but taking part in this discussion has not involved a vacation from content for me—though I must admit that I have not been as active in the spoiler debate as some. But yes, I am more optimistic than you. For though the issues have been hashed and rehashed, I disagree that there has been no progress. The discussion at WT:SPOILER began with two highly partisan positions and slowly but surely moved towards the beginnings of a consensus (to keep the warnings, but limit their usage much more severely than before). Then, for no good reason, the tag was deleted. That was the biggest set back of all, since it made the issue much more partisan once again (with many backing out of the compromises they had made and learned to live with). Now this TfD threatens to do the same. Why can't the conversation at WT:SPOILER just be allowed to take its course? Is this really so desperately urgent? I think not, especially when progress is being made elsewhere. Cutting the Gordian Knot is a clever solution to a problem, but not when the rope is holding up a support pillar. (That's overstating it a bit, but I hope you catch my meaning all the same.) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already templates for articles focus too much on the plot, include original research or lack real world information. Specifically mentioning that the article includes details of the ending is basically a spoiler warning and that template was already discussed, deleted and endorsed. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the ((current fiction)) template was mentioned as an alternative to the ((spoiler)) template in that TFD, and also mentioned as an alternative by the closing admin. The spoiler guideline was rewritten around the ((current fiction)) template. --Pixelface (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't turn into a rehash of the spoiler debate. I believe that the spoiler tags used everywhere were a bad thing. However, I do not believe that a spoiler warning on a recently released work of fiction is a problem. Besides, this template doesn't only cover that. I do thing that it should be used more sparingly, and a defined time to keep it on a page. But I see this as a fitting template to use. I (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rehash is inevitable due to the things I mentioned in my reply to BillPP, and because the ((current fiction)) template was proposed on WT:SPOILER. --Pixelface (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At first glance, this template doesn't seem very useful - after all, we don't use Spoiler templates, and 'current fiction' is a somewhat nebulous and ill-defined category. However, on further thought, this template does have a use: for example, tagging articles about just-broadcast television episodes. When a new episode of Lost, Heroes, Doctor Who or some other popular show is broadcast, the article is typically a mess for the first few days, with an overlong plot summary and no real-world content; this template fits those situations perfectly. I don't think it would ever be worth keeping an article tagged with this for more than a week, but it does have a use beyond just substituting for the old Spoiler template. Terraxos (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, consensus was that we do, occasionally, use spoiler tags. Despite that, however, the tag was deleted. But yes, this tag does have other uses as well. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is a mess, it's more informative to use ((plot)) or one of the many helpful templates found at WP:TM. Under this template, the article could be perfectly shaped or in the worst possible shape. There's no genuine insight given. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Nothing much to say other than this is worthless template. --SkyWalker (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm unable to disagree with Postmodern Beatnik. Grrrr. --Kizor _{is in a constant state of flux} 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with 3 new tags: ((recent film)), ((recent book)), and ((recent video game)). I think the ((current fiction)) template is valid as a spoiler warning in articles about recently released fictional works and I also think the template is valid if the spoiler warning language is removed and it's only used to indicate an article may change rapidly. There are differing opinions on what constitutes "recent", but I think the word "current" is a little more confusing when applied to fictional works. I would favor the creation of 3 new templates: ((recent film)), ((recent book)), and ((recent video game)). I think each of those templates would be good counterparts to ((future film)), ((future book)), and ((future video game)). I considered arguing to rename this template to ((recent fiction)), but the 3 new tags may be better than typing ((recent fiction|what=film)) each time. I realize the recent tags would probably not stay on an article very long, but the article can be put into categories so editors can find them and work on them in a timely manner. It may be best to delete this template or turn it into a redirect and put the controversy around it behind us (although I realize the same controversy may appear at the 3 new templates). --Pixelface (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question: What kind of language do you propose to have in these individual templates? The same, or instead, links to the respective WikiProjects' style guidelines, or both? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete - upon reflection I don't see a way that this template can settle on any usable form in the current climate, and its deletion at least provides a definitive resolution to the matter. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong solution now is superior to the right solution later? I fail to see the logic in that. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current fiction does not seem to be working as a solution, thereofre the (perfectly acceptable) outcome of no spoiler warnings seems the best way to bring this matter to a resolution. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything this template says or could be edited to say can be so much better expressed in an encyclopedic way within the lead of the article. Super Movie is a film released in December of 2007 (look, it's new) which stars Gary Barlow and Shakin Stevens. It depicts the adventures of two old wine tasters who travel the coast of Cornwall searching for a bottle from Van Gogh's cellar. The New York Times described it as "dull, but refreshingly so", and the film features a score by Nicky Wire of the Manic Street Preachers. Rottentomatoes.com have described it as "a film to avoid 2007". If you got that far, you know what you are in for, and you know what the article will tell you. Instead of tagging with templates, take five minutes to improve the article. Hiding T 21:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wellington Radio

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand does not use the call sign system anymore we haven't since 1989. While there were some stations around that had a call sign in the name this was only the case for the purpose of branding examples here are 4XO in Dunedin and 2XX in Kapiti. In fact I think the only callsign brand that is still in New Zealand is 1XX. While it could be appropriate to use this to link to articles about older stations these are being used to point to articles about the new rebranded stations and also to articles about network stations. The majority of our radio stations are operated by 2 major companies and network across the whole country in most case the frequencies and call signs are all just pointing to similar articles. In the past these boxes may have been appropriate when we were still using the call sign system and there were different stations operating around the country. . Bhowden (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a better approach to edit these templates to refer to stations by their common names rather than their callsigns, then? As Template:New Zealand radio networks does? --Stormie (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense but since we have Template:New Zealand radio networks do we really need these other templates that I have proposed for deletion? I guess another option may be to edit to list local stations currently in each market that is local stations with unique names, stations like More FM and Classic Hits would be excluded from this list as these station names are not unique names. We could then have perhaps a previous station section in the template linking to articles about stations that once existed under a unique name. Bhowden (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this links to the same articles repeatedly. ((New Zealand radio networks)) and List of radio stations in New Zealand have better navigational value, and List of New Zealand radio station callsigns can be used to find the old call signs. –Pomte 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christchurch Radio

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above with the Wellington Radio section Bhowden (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this links to the same articles repeatedly. ((New Zealand radio networks)) and List of radio stations in New Zealand have better navigational value, and List of New Zealand radio station callsigns can be used to find the old call signs. –Pomte 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dunedin Radio

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above with the Wellington and Christchurch template. Bhowden (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here just for the hell of it... delete - this doesn't even have the station I'm currently on air on (doing Radio One (New Zealand)'s Sunday morning "Atmospheres" show for the next hour and a quarter... :) Grutness...wha? 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this links to the same articles repeatedly. ((New Zealand radio networks)) and List of radio stations in New Zealand have better navigational value, and List of New Zealand radio station callsigns can be used to find the old call signs. –Pomte 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Auckland Radio

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Bhowden (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this links to the same articles repeatedly. ((New Zealand radio networks)) and List of radio stations in New Zealand have better navigational value, and List of New Zealand radio station callsigns can be used to find the old call signs. –Pomte 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warning and block

The result of the debate was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. WODUP 00:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very bitey template, redundant to ((uw-vandalism4)).. Kesac (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must agree I would not like it if someone posted a warning message like that. ¤~IslaamMaged126 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retinoids

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to ((Carotenoids)). ((Carotenes)), ((Retinoids)) and ((Xanthophylls)) were recently split off from Template:Carotenoids, but this information is better placed in parent template, because all are very closely related compounds with similar properties and structures. Having these compounds in the same template will help navigation of these closely related compounds without having the clutter of unnecessary templates with only a few compounds in them. I've modified ((Carotenoids)) so that it presents these compounds in a compact, easy to use way. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the template, I have no objection to its deletion. --Arcadian (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come Carotenoids doesn't mention Retinoids and vice versa? –Pomte 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xanthophylls

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Template:Carotenoids. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Carotenes

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redundant to Template:Carotenoids. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]