Forum:CT:Implementing a new template for articles with unknown development status

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Implementing a new template for articles with unknown development status

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Implement the template in its proposed form. —MJ— Comlink 19:08, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

This CT is an extension of the issue I raised in this SH thread. You can view my original post there, so I'm only going to summarize my point in a few words here. There are several Star Wars products that have been stuck in development for years. We have had no official word on their cancellation, but continuing to treat them as "future products," potentially indefinitely, does not seem like the best course of action to me. Following a discussion we've had with other users over at the Senate Hall, we've decided that the best we can do is tag the articles in question with a special template, which would look something like this.

[[File:Queicon.png]]

The development status of the subject of this article is unknown.

This article covers a subject that has been announced, but has neither been released nor officially canceled in more than two years. Since there have been no official updates on the product within that time, its current development status cannot be determined.

The two year cutoff mark is entirely up to debate, which is reflected in the voting options below, but I think it suits the template's purpose, to mark the really extreme cases of such "forgotten" products. So, my proposal is to implement the template, as well as to create a new category for the articles tagged with it. I realize that so much procedure may seem to much for just a small number of articles that this would affect (I can think of only four that meet the criteria at the moment), but more of them can appear in the future, and I just think that this is something that needs to be done. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 15:32, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Option 1: Implement the template in its proposed form

  1. As I said in the SH thread, I think that this in its current form is a good idea. The timeframe seems reasonable to me as well. Fully support. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 16:33, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Indeed. Good looking template.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 21:49, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
  3. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:00, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
  4. This new template is useful, and discussing the deadline would be completely arbitrary. So I'll go with option 1. LelalMekha (talk) 23:18, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Menkooroo (talk) 02:34, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  6. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 02:41, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  7. I absolutely think it should be this way. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 04:42, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:11, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:53, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  10. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:07, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:16, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Meh. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:33, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  13. —MJ— Training Room 00:45, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
  14. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 01:08, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
  15. Sure. Commander Code-8 To say hi, press 42 09:38, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
  16. 1358 (Talk) 12:52, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
  17. ~SavageBOB sig 16:19, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
  18. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 17:04, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
  19. Stake black msg 17:32, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
  20. Rokkur Shen (talk) 00:27, January 15, 2013 (UTC).
  21. Two years good, four years bad. (Other cutoff values also bad.) jSarek (talk) 04:31, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
  22. Why not? Tinwe(comlink) 09:18, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Option 2: Implement the template, but set a new deadline

Option 3: Do not implement the template, continue treating those articles as future products, AKA "Meh"

Discussion