Template talk:Future tvshow information

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 April 20. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete.

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 September 2. The result of the discussion was strong keep.

Has the use of this template been officially sanctioned? It seems to imply (to new users, in particular, who don't know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) that it's okay to add speculation to articles. There are tremendous amounts of current TV shows, and not only does this template make it more difficult to curtail original research, it also takes away a measure of credibility from hundreds of articles. Kafziel 16:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Adding this template to an article really takes away from the overall credibility of the article. Usually when you're basing information on episodes that have already aired, that information stays credible. There are certain details which may become nullified (death of a character, loss of an object, etc), but those events, even if they are temporary, are still accurate. Once it's found that they are only temporary, the article gets adjusted accordingly. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

Contents 1 ==Tfd== 2 usage? 3 This template is stupid 4 We need to define what exactly an "In-progress Television Show" is 5 Template Rewording

[edit] ==Tfd==

As stated above there was a Tfd for this template. There was heavy debate, but no concensus could be reached. Please take your discussion and suggestions for solving the temporal issues to the WP:TV Talk page. - The DJ 19:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] usage?

I wasn't aware of contestation regarding usage of the template, but since it is around and being used, is there any official usage SOP to follow? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)}

There's nothing official, as far as I know, but this should really be not used at all. The info that a series is currently running is in the infobox, and there is just no point in using this in pretty much all cases. --Conti|✉ 17:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should only be used in episode lists and future episode articles. If you take a look at many of the main articles for TV series, they're simply a general overview of the show and don't contain any information that this template addresses. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And I still just found (and removed) this template at The Simpsons and Family Guy. I wouldn't mind this template on episode lists for future/current seasons, for example. --Conti|✉ 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This template is stupid

This template is completely useless. Any proper article on a television show would mention if it were still in progress. No articles should contain speculation unless it is somehow important and relevant, in which case it would be properly worded so that it is clear that it is speculation. The fact that this template mentions that "content might change" is ridiculously redundant... this is a wiki! ~MDD4696 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree and wonder why this survived TFD in the first place. --Conti|✉ 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's nominate it again. —Ruud 02:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to define what exactly an "In-progress Television Show" is

After removing this tag from The Force: Behind the Line, it reappears and I haven't removed it again, yet because I think there needs to be some form of definition on what an in-progress tv show is. My definition is as follows: A Television show which contains content which is dragged out over the entire series. This means shows with actual "Storylines" such as Desperate Housewives, Lost and Grey's Anatomy. Not talk/chat shows or reality shows because the content is not structured. Some input on this matter is most welcome. Lakeyboy 11:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Rewording

I think that the current template may be a little outdated adn that the wording should be changed. The template is currently used for some shows (e.g. Survivor) in which the information in the article is not concrete yet, while in other articles, the information is fact and solid. So I guess it wouldn't hurt for it to stay as it gives readers who access these articles notification that of course the article will change over time as it is a Wiki article, but some of the information contained within the page may not be confirmed completely yet as it hasn't happened, even though it can be verfied.... (hope that make sense).

I don't really mind either way if the template is detroyed or if it remains, just adding a thought. <d3345>l4V78> 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)