So now that the discussion has come down in favor of deprecation, how shall we go about "implementing" the deprecation? A suggestion made earlier on was to program a bot to go through and remove the template from every article, but I'm not sure that is a good solution at this time - deprecation is not the same thing as elimination, and there may be some cases where editors are reluctant to see them removed. Should all of the templates in the temporal templates category be marked with {{tdeprecated}}? Some other solution? Shereth 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea of using G6 in that manner, as that usually comes after an actual TfD. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant {{tdeprecated}}, not {{deprecated}}. Shereth 21:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, that won't work either, as it still wants a "new" template to redirect to. I suppose what I'm wondering is if we should mark them as deprecated in some fashion to discourage their future use. Shereth 21:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the templates are removed from articles then I'm not really sure I see the point of this discussion; in theory you have a concensus to stop using them, but if they're still there then in reality nothing has changed. Since concensus here has been only to deprecate, I would think the next logical step is a TfD to pursue deletion. PC78 (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could simply use a custom-made template:
The template is deprecated and should not be used anymore.
In addition, a bot can be used to remove the templates from articles. --Conti|✉ 22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works, too. I suppose one way or another, it needs to be decided if these are going to be phased out gradually via deprecation or actively excised via deletion. I suppose the only reason I ask is because I've seen it happen in the past where the enforced removal of "deprecated" formatting turned in to a massive headache and I'd rather not see the ambiguity turn into a problem here. Shereth 22:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, if we don't at least actively prevent users from using these templates, nothing is going to change. People are simply going to keep using them. --Conti|✉ 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why, at the very least, they need to be marked as "do not use". I am somewhat ambivalent as to whether or not they should be deleted/removed, but that distinction should be made sooner rather than later. Shereth 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I'd say: Redirect all of the future templates to the basic {{Future}} template and mark it as deprecated. DrilBot should be able to go through most of the pages that transclude them and remove the template, replacing it with just the category (I'd need to request bot approval first, but I don't think that this sort of request would be denied). Then, periodically, we can go through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Future and remove any new usages. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we do a bot run to remove the templates, once they are no longer in use I would say they can be safely deleted, so no one has to do periodic checking on it. Shereth 22:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this redirect/bot/delete idea is good. The generic future template could be marked as well, with a small transcluded message stating that the template has been deprecated and should no longer be used. I'm thinking something unobtrusive, the way TfD notices are transcluded. This way it won't come as a shock when the bot comes along and whisks these away en-masse. Equazcion (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Perhaps we can insert a message at the bottom of each tag, something like this:
In this way, everybody will see what is about to happen, and we will avoid having people removing the template without replacing it with the corresponding category. --Kildor (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along these lines, with the notice outside the template. Also changed some wording:
The template below has been deprecated (see discussion), and will soon be replaced automatically with the corresponding category.
Seems more appropriate outside the box, stands out less to the average reader who doesn't know anything about bots or template deprecation. I could be wrong, it's late here :) Equazcion (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to keep the message outside of the template. Should it be transcluded into the articles, or kept on the templates? If the former, should the templates be removed from the articles first?
I noticed that quite often these templates are added to articles by people using Wikipedia:Friendly, so I've gone ahead and left a note there to ask for the removal of the Future templates from that utility. --Conti|✉ 09:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good! And Equazcion's version of template message above is perfectly fine (better than mine :). I would say we better add the message to the template itself rather than transclude it into the article. It might be a good idea to transclude it like {{tfd-inline}} so that everone sees it. But I am not sure if we should redirect all the templates to {{future}} as suggested above. We will need to deal with each template separately, since they place articles in different categories. For more frequently used templates, this is better done by a bot. But for less used templates, it will probably be easier to remove them by hand. --Kildor (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the not redirecting the templates all to {{future}}. It shouldn't be too big of a hassle to modify each of the templates with the notice. I do agree that it should be transcluded into the article, as well, so people know what to expect. Shereth 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If transcluded, the message should contain a link to this page so people know where the decision was made. And yes, the templates should not be redirected until they are orphans. --Conti|✉ 14:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Get rid of the red but leave outside the template and in italics, just as a standard tfd or ffd message is displayed. --Izno (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I might have jumped the gun... I put the {{Future film}} template up for TfD. I looked below the closed proposal for follow-up discussion and did not see that it continued above the proposal... in any case, removal of this template requires a specific handling (maintaining articles in the "Upcoming films" category). Anyway, that's my heads-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe this discussion should he moved back down (or to the talk page, or something). Anyhow, I've compiled a list of the templates and the categories they use, which can be used by whomever is going to deprecate the templates with a bot. As for the TfD, you could withdraw the nomination to keep the discussion in one place. --Conti|✉ 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a request to withdraw. I agree about moving discussion down. Maybe if there is a fear of people missing it below the proposal, we can force a table of contents to show that there's more than one item? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back to the bottom, where I had started it to begin with. I went ahead and collapsed the proposal, so that this part of the discussion is now more prominent. Shereth 15:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Regarding the problem with using the bot after redirecting all future templates: I don't think that's a problem, because the code in each page won't change; Future films will have the {{future film}} code and future games will still have the {{future game}} code, for example. The bot will still be able to use those to determine which category to place. All that would change is the actual box that renders in the article. That's my take anyway, I could be wrong. As far as the TfD for Future films, I see people have brought this discussion to their attention, so hopefully that nomination can be speedily closed without too much flak. If this discussion needs to be moved somewhere to avoid that happening again, that's fine. It used to at the bottom of this page, and I moved it up here, perhaps in bad judgment, to keep people (and myself) from having to scroll through the long archived debate below. (post edit conflict) Good job on the move :) Equazcion (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we use some other template for articles that are changing rapidly. Maybe {{construction}}? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this discussion because a the future building template was removed from a template I use. I am not sure from reading the above that there is broad community support for this change, and fear that we will be duplicating the date controversy as people and bots go around removing templates that have been around for a long time. Unless I'm mistaken this has had 21 days of discussion from about 50 users. I would have opposed this change had I known about it and wonder how many other contributors missed it. There was no notice on WikiEN-l of the existence of this discussion that I can remember.

Despite the overwhelming vote to deprecate I think we need to give some thought to why they haven't been deleted before now if it was so obvious that they should be? There must be editors and/or users that find their use convenient and informative beyond their use to reiterate parts of the disclaimer. Have those reasons been thought about rather than being summarily dismissed?

Unfortunately, I think that those that support their use would NOT notice the discussion until the templates start to get deleted. Therefore, we ought to be prepared for such a contingency. And the implementation should proceed in a way that provides for these these possible objectors to contribute to the process to reach full consensus. However, I could be very wrong and no one but me will feel they were left out, if so I just ignore my comment and proceed. --Trödel 17:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left notices about this discussion at all places I considered relevant, but it never occurred to me to leave one at WikiEN-l (probably because I don't use the mailing-list myself). Apologies for that. I think I didn't leave out any important on-wiki place, at least (WP:CENT, the Village Pump, all WikiProjects that use these templates, all talk pages of the templates, etc.). But unfortunately it's inevitable that someone who'd like to participate in such a discussion will miss it, we can only minimize that problem, not eliminate it entirely. This certainly shouldn't become another date controversy disaster, and I hope no one is going to start any edit wars over this issue.
As for why these templates have been used, my interpretation can be read above in the original discussion. Basically, it's a "We use them because we can" issue, just like it was with the spoiler templates a long while ago, or the overuse of the current event templates a not so long while ago. People see a "Future" template, and decide to create their own for a group of articles that does not yet have its own "Future" template, and once they have, they start applying it. Hey, there's a template for future elections, so why not one for future years? Wait a few years, and you have dozens of different future templates. Of course that's not the sole reason, and there actually are good points why we should use these templates (again, a lot of those can be found in the above discussion), but in the end I (and many others, it seems) was not convinced that they warrant the use of these templates. The only real use of these templates (in my opinion) is categorization, and that part would not be touched if a bot would remove them from the articles.
The first step should probably be to mark these templates as deprecated, without removing them from articles. That, hopefully, will alert more people on this discussion. Maybe they will come and object, maybe they won't. We'll see. --Conti|✉ 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted in high-profile places like WP:CENT. In theory, CENT and similar locations will attract users of all sorts of varying views on a topic, so that even with only 50 !votes you still have a similar percentage of support and oppose votes as you would with 500 or 5,000 !votes. I think that a lot of users who add the templates also do so because that's how it's done. I've never added the templates just because I thought that it was a good idea (and because I've never had occasion too add one in the first place :)), but if I did add one it would have been because that's how it's done, not because I liked them. The !votes above seem to show strong support in favor of their deprecation, so I think that we can just start moving on with this. If there is significant opposition once edits start being made, then the discussion can be revisited. As to why they haven't been deleted before if there is such overwhelming consensus to do so, I'd assume that it's just because nobody actual took the time to start a discussion. It can be daunting to start some huge RFC that could affects thousands and thousands of pages. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with everything above, I just wanted to add that I think many people if not most add these to articles just because they exist. People inherently assume that the existence of a template, containing a message applicable to an article, is reason enough that it ought to be there. If you created a template to mark all music-related articles, unnecessary as that would seem, they would still be used simply because they are there. As for why they haven't been deleted yet, this has been a gradually growing issue, and there was really no singular event that would've triggered a nomination. It would have had to simply be someone finally saying they're tired of seeing these unnecessary things everywhere and asking who else agrees, which is pretty much what happened. Equazcion (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the objections. I'm not seeking to reopen discussion. I just wanted to log my objection in case there are others as it can be intimidating to come to a page like this where everything seems too late. I wanted to create a place where such objections can be lodged and if there is sufficient numbers of them we can decide what to do.
There was due diligence in noticing the discussion - in my opinion from browsing around after my: comment above. I do think that the input hasn't been as broad as I would have hoped for if I was the nominator.
I am a visual person and think the notice conveys useful info quickly. And if it is on an article that it shouldn't be on - that tells me the article is not watched carefully which is also useful info. But let's not bother debating any - it seems settled - unless there are sufficient objections. I ask that implementation proceed carefully, as has been done thus far, in case there are such objections.
Sorry for bringing up the date discussion - maybe using that argument in the future will be a corallary to Godwin's Law :) Trödel 20:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trödel just expressed my own earlier concerns. I still think that, at the very least, someone should start a TfD before continuing on. I'm just betting that you guys are walking yourselves into a storm here. You'll do what you want regardless, but there will probably be less heartache if you at least go through TfD, since you can at least point to that when the inevitable complaints start rolling in.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can just point to this, I think. If we really must bow to the bureaucratic notion that a deletion discussion for templates must take place at TfD, then by all means, let's move this entire page to a TfD subpage. Equazcion (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*shrug* it's up to you. I reserve the right to say "I told you so", though.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I'm not so sure. This proposal was to deprecate, not delete, so I think concensus here allows us to mark the templates as deprecated and even remove them from articles, but no more. TfD may be a necessary step. PC78 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and put a dummy disclosure entry @ Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 29. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of moving things along, the plan seems to be to alter all future templates to include a message, to be transcluded into all their articles, warning of the automated replacement by bot. The templates would be deleted once the bot has replaced all future templates with their corresponding future categories, and also after manually doing the same for template references the bot didn't catch, like those added to articles while the bot was working. The immediate steps should be to add the message to the templates, and to apply for bot approval. I have very little experience with bots or their approval process, but I can begin work on adding the template messages. If everyone more or less agrees on the plan, we should get started on it. Equazcion (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will file a bot request for approval shortly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. A few of the templates are fully protected (ironically enough, only those that are not used on hundreds of articles), so you'd need to make some editprotected request. --Conti|✉ 21:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrilBot 4.
For protected templates, you can use {{editprotected}} or just ping my talk page; I'd be happy to make the edits for you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an edit to {{future}} that I believe reflects what we are trying to do here. I've also set it up so it shows a larger message on the template itself, informing editors not to use it. Let me know if this is what we want to do, I'm holding off on making further edits until it has been reviewed. Shereth 21:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, less links are always good. The link to the "corresponding category" should probably not always be used, since some of these templates use more than one, or none at all (see User:Conti/"Future" templates/List for a full list. It can get rather complicated). Also, there's probably no need to link to WP:BOT. Apart from that, it looks good to me. --Conti|✉ 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas on reducing the links. I think it's a better solution, too. Shereth 21:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Everything looks okay so far. I've placed the notice, using Shereth's example, on {{future film}}, but without the bot and category links. Equazcion (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hit the protected ones, so it looks like all the templates have now been properly marked as deprecated. Now that it is done, the approval period for the bot should give interested users some time to notice the notices and drop in to sound off if there will be any further issues with the deprecation. Shereth 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the non-protected future templates are also done, in case that wasn't clear. Equazcion (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template was made to make it very obvious that the topic is in the future. Like spoilers, it should already be obvious in the text. However, in some articles it may still be necessary to point out that it is a future and changing topic, but the lead/text does not make it clear. I suggest that, either in the notice on the template or in an edit summary by the removal bot, there should be a short reminder to users to be sure the article still conveys that the information may be dynamic. Reywas92Talk 02:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spoiler warnings were removed by a massive abuse of the rules and exploitation of single points of failure in the system. Please don't use them for precedents in other cases. And specifically in the case of spoiler templates, a spoiler warning is not redundant, because not every plot element is a spoiler. A properly used spoiler warning should only be applied to spoilers, not to everything which contains a plot element; this might mean putting it in the middle instead of at the top if the first spoiler appears some distance down, or not putting it in at all if no spoilers are being given.
Furthermore, to the extent which it is redundant with being a plot, all natural language, and many user interfaces, contain some redundancy. My car's fuel gauge has an empty and full marker. The empty marker is completely redundant because everyone can figure out from the presence of "full" at the other end that this end means "empty". It would be foolish to delete it on these grounds. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beta software has also been tagged for deprecation. I didn't originally consider that template for the list of Future templates, and as I've nominated the template for deletion a while ago, I don't want to be the one to decide whether it should be included here or not, so I'll let you guys decide on that one. :) --Conti|✉ 08:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... this could go either way. It does seem to convey a little more information to the reader than the other templates do, but at the same time it should also be pretty clear in the text. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference I can see is that it doesn't have "future" in the title. It's the same thing really. PC78 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^Agreed. I don't see any differences either. It says something is in development. Isn't that what all the future templates say? This one just doesn't contain the word "future". Equazcion (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit. User:Brian Everlasting commented out the entire {{future sport}} template (his intention may have been to only comment out the deprecation notice, but I'm not quite sure myself on that). I requested an explanation, to which he replied that he thinks the notices are an eyesore. I invited him to comment here. However in the meantime, I'm concerned that the future sport template isn't even showing up at the moment, since all of its code has been commented out, which might be misleading to people in a number of ways. I think the edit should be reverted, at least until Brian's concerns can be addressed further here, however it might not be appropriate for me to perform the revert since I'm the one who placed the deprecation notice on the template in the first place. I'm also wondering if someone with more diplomatic ability than myself could speak to Brian and at least convince him to bring his concerns here. Equazcion (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone ahead and reverted. Commenting out an entire template is highly inappropriate. PC78 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to rehash this. The whole "future" template thing was held yonks ago and we deleted them. If somebody has recreated them just speedy them. --TS 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, I think that was too long ago to still hold (I see {{future}}'s history goes back to 2005). The current iteration of future templates has become pretty accepted and deserves the new discussion it's getting. It might be worthwhile to dig up the discussion(s) that led to their original deletion though, just for the record. Equazcion (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in the logs and the history and am surprised (and apologetic) at not finding that these templates were dumped back in 2007 when I thought we did for them all. In any case, deletion is long overdue. Better late than never. --TS 01:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it happens :) Equazcion (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They do still need to be removed by bot first... otherwise we'd have redlinked templates littering the articles! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, these things are useful. WP:PW uses them for all our future PPVs, which normal account to around 10.--WillC 21:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they really needed even in that case, beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL? What do they tell the reader that the reader can't determine after reading a sentence or two? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I think it is accepted(?) that you can try recreating it on an individual basis once the Great Purge is complete; you'll just need to show consensus beforehand, which might be hard to get looking at how the polling went. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, these templates contravene our No disclaimers in articles (WP:NDA) guideline. They should certainly not be recreated ad hoc. --TS 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Temporal templates are explicity exempt from that guideline. Incidentally, can anyone post a link to the "whole "future" template thing [that] was held yonks ago"? PC78 (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following consensus for this deprecation, should there be some sort of accompanying policy edit to reflect it? The mention of No disclaimers in articles above, and the exception it contains regarding "temporal" templates, got me thinking. If there's an interest in seeing that these templates aren't re-created down the line, maybe an addition to WP:NDA is in order, something "un-excepting" future templates? Perhaps a new guideline altogether? At the very least, a short reference outlining this discussion and its outcome could be placed somewhere. Equazcion (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we've kind of been talking about this at WT:POLICY recently. My answer right now (and likely forever) is "no", simply based on the fact that whatever you and I may agree to right now isn't really binding on whoever else may come along later. Like it or not, we all have to work together here. There's simply no shortcuts to... interestingly enough, in light of the post below, consensus.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a lengthy irrelevant exchange was moved to the talk page) You seem to disagree that a consensus exists on this page, which I'm not going to argue about further (at least not here). I'd like to get opinions on possible policy revisions, under the assumption that this page does represent a consensus. So to restate the question, if there is consensus for this deprecation, should a policy change be made to reflect that? Equazcion (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I actually said above, No policy revision is needed. We've been talking about this topic at WT:POLICY recently. Feel free to join in the continuing discussions there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I see there are a few hypothetical discussions. In light of the outcome of this discussion, it would be perfectly reasonable to review the wording of WP:NDA with regard to temporal templates. PC78 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it... just don't be surprised when you meet some actual reistance. It's one thing to go after a template, or even a series of templates, but it's quite another to try to change policy. Their two different worlds, really.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a guideline, not a policy. And no, they aren't different worlds, they both require discussion and concensus. But I personally have no intention of "going for it" because others are taking the lead here. I also didn't support this proposal, I just have a healthy respect for concensus. PC78 (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have respect for consensus. It's just that consensus requires some compromise, which is clearly not occurring here. But, there's more about that on the talk page if you're really interested. Equazcion doesn't like this sort of conversation being here, and I don't really care, so you'll just have to take an extra step to see it is all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise is not an essential part of concensus, it depends entirely on what's been said. I've read that other discussion and frankly I think you used a lot of words to say very little. What compromise do you think is needed here? PC78 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles needs to be modified. Temporal disclaimers can still be appropriate (Template:Current), and I don't think the guideline mentions the Future templates at all. Wikipedia:Current and future event templates needs to be modified, tho, but that page isn't even a guideline anyhow. --Conti|✉ 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please point me in the direction of it? I've (admittedly only) skimmed over, and a poll is all you seem to have? There also seems to be very few editors involved in this, it hasn't been given a fair chance - the decision's been made based on a couple of deletionists on the usual mission and that's that? This does not seem to have been taken into account, that surely disputes any claim of consensus. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there isn't really any, as much as those who are advancing this position want there to be. No one has really stepped forward to say "stop" yet, is all. I don't think this should be done personally but, the fact is that I just don't care that much. People will just overturn whatever they do here, down the road, regardless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An argument can be made that there weren't enough people participating in this discussion (discussion, not poll), but more than 50 people are not "very few" by any definition of the term. And what should have been done to give this a fair chance, if this apparently hasn't been given one? As for the TfD on the Future album template, I was surprised myself that no one from that discussion has appeared here. I notified people about this discussion at the WikiProject Music, the WikiProject Albums and the WikiProject Songs, amongst other places. --Conti|✉ 16:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it was technically a discussion, but made a point of it seeming more like a poll. Overviewing it, the discussion seemed to be driven by numerous members, but the 'voting' which has contrived this consensus is where the "50" figure has come from. I can understand how you feel you have support, but as you said, I do not not see any activity from the relevant Wikiprojects, I guess it's our own fault for not responding accordingly and thus our own loss. IMO, the template should have had a more concentrated use anyway - pointing people to WP:CRYSTAL or something. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it's usually quite hard for discussions of this size not to turn into a poll, and some more discussion and some less bolded opinions would have been nice. But in the end, there's not much to discuss when most people simply agree with each other. I'm not sure how to interpret the lack of participation from Wikiproject members. Maybe they just didn't care much about these templates one way or another and therefore didn't comment here. Or no one actually reads Wikiproject talk pages. Which makes me wonder if there's a better way to notify people of general discussions like this one. --Conti|✉ 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a pretty big discussion on WP:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 28... 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 14:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was part of the basis of me posting this section, look in my first comment! :) I'd say the Wikiproject talk pages only get active when people see them up in their Watchlist, there has to be an active discussion for them to show up, one post doesn't sit on the top of your watchlist very long. Only reasonable explanation I can think of. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/DrilBot; just thought that I'd let everybody know. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot paused temporarily pending resolution of #Objections. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my bot removes all the usages of these templates, should I just go ahead and delete the templates or do they each need to go through TfD? The former seems outside of policy (no CSD applies), but the latter seems like pointless bureaucracy after having had this discussion. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As would probably seem obvious from my other comments on this page, my stance is that taking this to TfD would constitute the epitome of pointless bureaucracy. This discussion constitutes a deletion discussion, despite the fact that it didn't take place at TfD. Wikipedia is not governed by statute. Equazcion (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could G6 them under {{db-xfd}}, citing this page as the "deletion discussion", but that does seem slightly sketchy. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was for deprecating the templates, not deleting them. Take them to TfD or tag them with {{deprecated}}. PC78 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What could possibly be the point in keeping around a deprecated template that's already been removed from all articles? Why would we not take the next logical step and delete them, if not for the sake of bureaucracy? Equazcion (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the template I just linked? The templates would be eligible for speedy deletion after being tagged for 14 days. Beyond that you can't just simply decide to delete something. That's not what was discussed. PC78 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Deprecated}} seems reasonable to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No, I didn't look at the template you linked, and I should have. That works too then, though I disagree that deletion isn't what was discussed. I think that is precisely what was discussed. Differentiating between a deprecation discussion and a deletion discussion is splitting hairs, in my opinion. This is the very definition of bureaucracy. But that's again just my opinion. In the end I wouldn't object to using {{deprecated}}. Equazcion (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On how specifically to delete them, I would do it as you would any template deleted as the result of a discussion (no CSD criteria required), and just point to this discussion. ie. "Deleted per centralized discussion at (link)." Equazcion (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other similar discussions have pointed out that we cannot simply delete a template or anything else on Wikipedia. Various Wikipedia policies say that. The reason given is that, even though it may not be used at the current time, it was used in the past, and archives and other historical information might be lost if deleted. There may also be some legal reasons why unused things are not simply deleted; perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation can comment on that. The general consensus is that no-longer-used things are simply kept around, they are not deleted and there is no harm in that. Truthanado (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK that simply isn't true. We delete things all the time, especially templates that are no longer in use. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just make the templates invisible? Keeps the good and loses the putative bad. Rich Farmbrough, 05:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What is the difference? If you hide the visual message of the template, the only thing left is categorization, which is exactly what we are doing now by replacing templates with their corresponding categories (i.e. Category:Future events). --Kildor (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually maybe it is not the problem I thought. I am concerned about different functionality, the "as of" or "update" type of information. Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Well apparently it doesn't matter much what was discussed whether deprecated or deletion because they are being deleted at the moment .Garda40 (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One was mistakenly deleted by an admin who wasn't aware of this discussion. All of the rest are still there, as far as I can tell. Equazcion (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than one [1] .Garda40 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a removal from articles, which is not not the same as deleting the template. Garion96 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits are implementing the depereaction, not deletion. As Garion96 said, removing a template from an article is not the same as deleting the template. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
removing a template from an article is not the same as deleting the template
That's just wikilawyering .Garda40 (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. They're two different things. PC78 (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If something ends up having the same effect , which it most definitely will in this case namely the notice not being on articles , it is wikilawyering to suggest there is a difference .Garda40 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deprecation of a template means removing it from articles. That's what deprecation is. The template is deprecated and no longer used, so, it is removed from articles. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<- What are you protesting in the first place? Your original comment seems to indicate that you are protesting the deletion of the templates, even though this discussion was about deprecation. Now you say it's both the same anyhow. I'm confused. --Conti|✉ 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project notification and automobiles

[edit]

Would it have bee clever to inform wp projects before removing this template?? --Typ932 T·C 20:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Which is why I did just that. --Conti|✉ 20:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that this useful template was removed around 100 car articles and nothing was said in WP:CARS --Typ932 T·C 20:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, must've missed that WikiProject, my apologies. To my defense, the corresponding template does not have a WikiProject tag, nor is it linked from anywhere within that WikiProject. --Conti|✉ 20:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus here was that they weren't useful... why do you think that they are important to the articles? What can't the reader determine in a sentence or two of reading which the template would have clarified? And how many non-editors even read all the templates anyway? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you read car model articles you never know if its released car or just pure future speculation and that template was good to inform readers about that --Typ932 T·C 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the very start of the article make that clear? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should but that not happen in every article, and should removing this kind of templates to be informed properly I dont know how this thing was discussed but In my opinion should have been taken more widely to under discussion before removing. --Typ932 T·C 21:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed pretty thoroughly in the collapse box above, without too many objections. The discussion was advertised at WP:CENT, so a good bit of input from all points of view should be included. What articles don't make it clear that the thing isn't released yet? Are there really articles that use the present or past tense for unreleased vehicles/books/games, etc.? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure how many articles are unclear, but Im sure there are such articles, and very many using it as |section template, but will see it how does it affect, and Im not sure how closely projects took parts for WP:CENT etc. I think most follows their own projects only. --Typ932 T·C 21:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are actual problems with the articles, there are more appropriate templates that can be used. Template:Update, for instance. --Conti|✉ 21:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen the Future sport event template removed from the London Olympics 2012 article, i would just like to say i think the template was useful and should not have been removed or deleted if that is whats happening. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very title of 2012 Summer Olympics indicates that it is a future event. Why is a tag also needed? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? In June 2012, it will still be a future sporting event? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the article will still read "The 2012 Summer Olympic Games (...) are due to take place in London, United Kingdom from 27 July to 12 August 2012". --Conti|✉ 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be removed. Should we delete the "this person has recently died" template. Surely it will say the person is dead in the intro? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That template is needed because of WP:BLP, which I believe also covers, to some extent, the recently deceased. Such articles are sometimes subject to high levels of vandalism. These templates seem useless... do we really need this tag on that article for three years? IMO, it really just clutters up the page needlessly. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One small template at the top of the page does not "clutter up the page needlessly". Will you be deleting the {Future ship} template as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another brilliant example of WP's cloak and dagger bureaucracy. Appoint yourselves, hold a vote in an obscure location, and forgot to actually tell anyone.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes: This discussion was advertised at WP:CENT, which is widely viewed (I think). Additionally, after the discussion, notices were appended to every "future" template (and the notices were transcluded into articles) noting the templates' deprecation and linking to this discussion. How is that not "telling anyone"? Every articles that used one of these templates had a notice on it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want a list of places where this was advertised? --Conti|✉ 21:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt this was advertised in several hundred places. None of which I've ever heard of. Some of us actually spend our time on Wikipedia editing and creating articles, rather than creating rules for everyone else and so don't have much time for obscure bureaucracy, particularly when it gets in the way of content, as in this case. Removing the "spoiler" template was another idiotic idea.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think its time to stop implementation. There have been quite a few objections raised. While I think that there was an effort made to notify about this discussion and that it was done in good faith. The objections here are being dismissed without considering my original points I made earlier.

  1. No matter how well advertised something is, less than 50 editors who care about wikipoliticing do NOT create consensus
  2. Editors found these templates useful in clearly distinguishing between future/proposed/concept/conceptual articles from articles about completed things (i.e. these templates were not useful because they made a disclaimer)
  3. Wider discussion should take place with efforts to get editors of the different templates

Like many Wikipedia editors, I've found sanity and joy in just editing my little world of Wikipedia articles and ignore nearly all the contention, word-smithing, and minutiae of the "Wikipedia:" namespace. However, now that it has encroached on my world, with a decision that I'm not sure is a true consensus, I'm speaking out. It's time to consider how to get more editors involved and discover if there is a consensus to remove the future templates from all articles. There may well be - but you can clearly see from reviewing the responses to the objections that there are less than 5 editors who are driving this change and responding to all challenges that this is a fait accompli - I disagree strongly with this approach to global change. --Trödel 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not object to wider discussion; however, where would it be held that it would draw more attention than this? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the future banner. I raised this objection before, and I would like to state again that this banner provides a very nice visual cue to readers. I understand that the information regarding something as being in the future is supposed to be inside the text, but such information can be easily missed by a reader doing just a very cursory glance. Thanks. --unkx80 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I dont see the big problem with having the templates there and thought they were useful as they catch peoples eye straight away.
"This article contains information about a future Olympic Games, and is likely to contain information of a speculative nature. The content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available."
I think thats a pretty useful note to the reader to remind them that not all the contents of the article may be right. The title and the introduction does not tell them that. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of any article may be completely wrong, that's why we have the WP:General disclaimer. The "future" templates just duplicate it, albeit with a more specific warning text. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse every article could be complete crap, to be honest i would support a large banner above every article reminding people this is edited by anyone and should not be taken as 100% fact. However there is a difference between an article covering a past event and one covering a future event where there will still be many developments. Its very unlikely many major changes will need to be made to 2008 Summer Olympics, but its unavoidable major changes will be made to London 2012 as it gets closer. Whats wrong with reminding people of that? It does no harm at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does violate Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles to some degree. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That page says Temporal templates are an exception. Future / Current templates are "temporal templates" according to the page on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that not all page titles contain temporal information such as "2012". I came from the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit pages where quite a few lines are currently under planning or construction. Downtown MRT Line is one such line. I fear that without such a banner, more than a few readers might mistake this line as an operational line. --unkx80 (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think our readers are that stupid. It says quite clearly that the "Downtown MRT Line will be the fifth Mass Rapid Transit line in Singapore". Nevertheless, a cleanup template (perhaps {{future}} stating that an article needs to be rewritten to state more clearly that the article is about a future event might not be a bad idea. But I don't see the need of automatically putting a templated warning on every article remotely related to something in the future. Garion96 (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate reached the consensus that the "future templates" are generally deprecated in the articles. However, it was also said that if any specific template is worth keeping, this can be discussed. The above Olympic example shows why a template is not needed in 2012 Olympics article. The fact that it covers a future event is obvious from the title and introduction and the fact that some things can be inaccurate is covered in the general disclaimer. Regarding the whole discussion, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion is the most centralized place to hold such debates, given that most of the relevant WikiProjects have been notified. So, I would recommend the community to focus on separate templates instead and bring forward the reasons why some should be kept, not just overturn the implementation of the consensus here. --Tone 11:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao you say people should focus on separate templates, and yet this whole debate here has been about removing and in the end deleting them all treating them the same, if only each template was handled separately then too. If there are individual example of future templates that are acceptable, i dont quite understand how others are not? What harm did having a note explaining something is a future event and details may change (clearly in a way details about a past event would not). Current / future templates are useful for an encyclopedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be, but this is why I ask to bring forth one template that you think is useful. The debate at the top decided that in general, they are not. While they may not bring any harm, they also bring no other info than the first sentence of the introduction, "X will be in the future". But anyway, I entered the whole debate as an uninvolved admin who closed it, I really do not wish to get more involved now because this is not my focus area of WP. --Tone 11:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we're apparently starting the deprecation discussion again, I'd like everyone to have a look at User:Conti/"Future" templates again, where I've collected some of the most common arguments about these templates (and that includes all arguments made above so far). It would also be nice if everyone would read the original discussion that led to all this, since many, many arguments have been made there on both sides, and more importantly, there have been lots of responses. If we want to have the same discussion again, that's fine by me, but that way we'd all save some time.
To respond to a few individual arguments (again): "It provides a very nice visual cue to readers". And why is one needed in the first place? To warn our readers that an article will change? As has been said multiple times now, that's what the lede of the article is supposed to say (by saying that something is going to happen in the future). If our readers miss that, well, tough. That something is in the future is not the most vital part of an article, it's just one of many important pieces of information. We don't generally add a big template on top of an article to inform our readers about all the important things about the article. Again, that's exactly what the lede is for.
The concept of "temporal templates are an exception to our No Disclaimer guideline" was created for templates like Template:Current, which is supposed to stay on articles for days, at most. That it is nowadays used for future templates that stay on articles for weeks, months, years or even decades (yes, decades), is quite unfortunate, and not at all what "temporal template" was once supposed to mean. Again, everyone, please read the original discussion.
As to how we can get more people to comment here, I'm welcoming each and every idea. I've advertised this discussion on more than a dozen of places, and I considered the turnout of about 50 people to be a success, considering that the usual Wiki-discussion has a lot less people involved. That there are now "less than 5 editors who are driving this change and responding to all challenges" is hardly surprising to me. The discussion was held for over two weeks, an uninvolved admin was asked to close the discussion, which he did, a consensus was declared, a bot was tasked with deprecating the templates.. I imagine that by that time, 90% of the people simply unwatched this page, assuming the discussion ended. That does leave about 5 people still active on this page. I also find it interesting that people only start to actually complain about this once the templates are being removed. There has been a message on each and every template (transcluded, which means it was visible on almost 6000 articles!) for days that the corresponding template will be deprecated according to this discussion, and as far as I remember, only one person commented here because of that message. This kinda gives the impression that no one actually ever reads these templates, doesn't it? --Conti|✉ 12:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That this discussion and subsequent decision were held primarily in the month of August, in which many people are on holiday/vacation and Wikipedia edits are historically down, suggests that a longer discussion would be appropriate. Those involved have done a good job publicizing this, and the message that accompanies the templates on each page should trigger any interested editors to take part in the discussion. That's how I got here. I suggest, therefore, that this deprecation and removal of templates be temporarily placed on hold until the end of September 2009. After that, a review of the increased discussion can be made, with a decision to take (or not take) appropriate action. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So are all of the discussions held primarily in August also null and void, needing another month of discussion? That would seem stupid, especially since that is the schedule in America, but not nesseccarily in all other countries. That's like saying that a merge discusion shouldn't take place on a weekend due to lower editing rates. Besides, the opinions expressed in the discussion/poll should give the same percentage as they would if the discussion was held in September. At this point, I think that most of the supporters of the proposal aren't saying anything because they feel that it's already been decided; they see the notice or removal of a template, and don't do anything about it. Opposers come here to... well... oppose. :) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be several people here now who would strongly oppose the mass removal of these templates. I wonder how many the CARS project would have bought here if they had been informed as they should of been. As this is a general agreement on future articles, how about the Future ship templates? I note they have not been removed but im sure if this had been included and placed on the ships project page.. there would have been more opposition. Would it be enough to turn over the majority that sadly supported this awful proposal ? probably not, but it might of made a few more people think more carefully before agreeing to such a radical deletion proposal.
This is basically what is happening here, we are removing it from articles so at some point the template could be deleted. Had the templates just gone up for deletion would the outcome have been the same? i do not think so, because these templates are in so much use unlike the limited use of previous future templates which were deleted . BritishWatcher (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support retention of the future banners. They're useful.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, so please provide some reasoning. Why are they useful? --Conti|✉ 17:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguement can be used for all temporal templates.... Why are current/past templates useful? Give me an answer that you could not use for why future templates are useful. --Rootbear75 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have past templates that I know of, so I don't see how that really matters. Honestly, I think that the Current templates should be reworded to have some cautioning advice about only using reliable sources for the article, since otherwise people may add links to blogs, etc.; right now, I agree that most temporal templates have the same issue. However, the Current templates are only intended to be on an article for a few days... in articles like 2012 Summer Olympics, the tag would be there for three years. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope that we don't have any "past" templates yet. :) There are two groups of temporal templates, "current" and "future". Current template serve a specific purpose (especially Template:Current): They are used on highly active, strongly edited articles. Y'know, those that receive up to hundreds of edits a day. The template warns of that ("may change rapidly"), or rather, of its implications: That the article may already be out of date, that it might be a good idea to check back in 5 minutes, or that the article might contain vandalism, etc. All that might be true for any article, but in the case of some current events, it might be necessary to warn our readers with that additional disclaimer. Now, any current event template is only (supposed to be) used on articles that are changing rapidly, and is to be removed after a few days, maximum. The "Future" templates, on the other hand, are simply being used everywhere. And in 99,9% of the cases, that means the Future templates are on articles that are being edited normally, so no warning is needed at all. If the current event templates would be used on all current events, I would oppose that as well. --Conti|✉ 02:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would one of the opposers here who are calling for more discussion please mention where such discussion should take place? I'm fully open to ideas on further discussion, but I don't feel that it is necessary and have no idea what more visible location could be found than this. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each template should have been put up for deletion, allowing people to decide on a case by case basis if the template was good or useful. That is what we are told to do now, to consider which ones may be justified to keep as exceptions. Completly the wrong way to go about it as far as im concerned. Removing the templates from articles so they no longer have a use and clearly need to be deleted seems like the back door approach to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, many of the templates were put up for deletion whilst this discussion was taking place, and yet there's still many, many templates which remain because they were either kept or of no consensus. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The closing admin of the discussion above said that the templates can be considered on a case-by-case basis if some of them are more controversial than the others. If {{Future automobile}} has some particular reason for being kept beyond the others, than it can certainly be discussed individually. However, {{Future book}}, {{Future film}}, {{Future game}}, and {{Future album}} (arguably four of the most widely-used of the templates) drew little if any opposition here when they were removed. So, would it be wrong to say that removing them was the correct course of action, and maybe some others need more discussion? Requiring an individual TFD for each template seems like unnecessary WP:BURO... if that was done, then everyone would most likely just copy/paste keep or delete !votes to every one without really looking at the individual template, anyway (something similar happened at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23... the various nominations had different reasons and were meant to be discussed separately, but nobody else seemed to really look at each nomination separately). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Kiac: What templates were individually nomianted? Nothing was mentioned here about it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that is how it should have been done from the start. Instead of looking at individual cases now, they should of been looked at on a case by case basis before mass deletion / removal. Its a bit like shooting everyone and then deciding which ones you are going to try and save, instead of deciding who to shoot at first. (strange example, but same sort of principle). I still do not understand how some templates are more justified than others, although clearly some are more used. If you can accept that future templates for cars are ok, and people here completely ignore the future ships one then why is one on future sporting events sooo unacceptable? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the one for cars is OK; I was just using it as an example. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 28 - Just as there was no mention of this, there. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of these templates is nonsense. As for Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, does anyone else notice not one but two similar gray templates describing important information the page covers? ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it nonsense? Could you elaborate on that? --Conti|✉ 20:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What more is there to say? We use the exact same notices on Wikipedia: policy pages. Is {{policy}} going to be deleted as well? Nonsense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't typically see the policy pages... project-space pages can have more notice templates because they are for the editors. Readers shouldn't need to see things like this. Templates like {{policy}} also provide information not typically clear within the first few sentences of the page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see... so we're going to delete all the "[edit]" links and "[citation-needed]" links and most of these templates as well, right? ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would be nonsense. Why would deleting some templates mean having to delete all templates? Templates get deleted all the time (see WP:TFD), and yet, miraculously, some don't. We tend to discuss which templates are beneficial to Wikipedia and which aren't, and then remove the ones that aren't. You're welcome to participate in that discussion here, preferably by providing some reasoning as to why you think these particular templates benefit the project. Equazcion (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great and everything, but this isn't WP:TFD, and deleting twenty or so templates for no good reason is just as nonsensical as deleting all templates for no good reason. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you'd care to present your argument against the reasons that have been given for the deletion, rather than just saying that they aren't "good" or that they're "nonsense". TFD is generally where template deletion discussions take place, but this is a more significant change involving a broad scope of templates, so the centralized discussion area seemed more appropriate. The mere fact that a template deletion discussion took place outside TFD doesn't invalidate it. Equazcion (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, the way you have?
"I think this redirect/bot/delete idea is good."
What was your argument for this action in the first place, again? I think mine against it is pretty clear. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you refer to was in support of a manner of implementing the proposal, after the proposal discussion concluded, and there wasn't any reason to elaborate on why I supported it, since no one seemed to oppose it or have any better ideas. Check out the actual proposal discussion, which is collapsed at the top of this page under the heading Proposal (click "show"). Many including myself have offered many arguments there. Equazcion (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So because you're defending something new that a handful of people conspired to achieve in some obscure location instead of WP:TFD and I'm merely defending the status quo, I have to go to great lengths to make my arguments clear and you don't have to make arguments at all? :p
You people didn't even have consensus when nobody knew about this, you certainly haven't now. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that starting the discussion here as opposed to at TFD was some sort of conspiracy, which aside from being a bad-faith assumption (WP:AGF), was brought up already on this page by someone with more tact than yourself; See here, and the accompanying answer. Whether you're defending the status quo or advocating change, I think everyone should have to do their best to make their arguments clear if there is opposition. As I said in my last response, I did at least attempt to make my arguments clear above in the proposal discussion, as many others have (on both sides). You however, have so far only made accusations and called the proposal "nonsense", without presenting any actual argument. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assumption is irrelevant, that's what happened. I've never once in four years been to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion until now — its name is laughable. You didn't make an argument at all, mine was clear. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to find out things about a topic, you currently need to read the article. Tags are only meant for other things, not related to the topic but to the article itself, from an editing standpoint; information that couldn't be presented within the article, like not enough references present or copy editing required.

Future templates make it easier to see that an article is about something that will happen in the future. I won't argue with that, because it's just true, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that many people like them and want them to stay. There's a lot of information about article subjects that could be beneficial to place in a separate colorful eye-catching box. Wikipedia just doesn't operate that way (yet).

It could be that general topic information would benefit from eye-catching placement. If an article is about a historical American event in which someone important got assassinated, each of those points (historical, American, assassination) would be useful to see right at the beginning of the article, despite those likely being present in the topic sentence. Just as the argument has been made for future templates, just in case people don't read the topic sentence, or just in case the article is written poorly, they might benefit from such tagging.

This might be a sign that we need to figure out a better way to display article categories to readers. We have "future" categories that we plan to keep around, so if categories were displayed more prominently, perhaps this wouldn't be an issue, and other information important to a topic would be clearly visible in a graphical sense, similar to the way future tags are. Maybe in addition to cross-referencing and listing related articles, categories could also be a way for readers to gain important topic information quickly, at a glance.

That's a bigger issue though. Although I would take this suggestion myself to Village Pump, we currently have a smaller problem at hand: tags that really shouldn't have been tags to begin with, despite there being ample reason for their popularity now. We currently don't generally use tags to provide this kind of information to readers.

I'd also just like to point out that popularity doesn't make or break a feature on Wikipedia. If it did, I think every movie article would contain a trivia section copied from IMDb, and an attempt to remove those would cause a huge stir. Despite popularity, there's a certain standard and consistency Wikipedia strives for, and these tags don't fit. Equazcion (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tags broke no wikipedia rules, the templates removal was not required, just the prefered choice of some people here. Each of the templates in question should have been put up for deletion so that they could each be judged on their merits, instead of this centralized debate which clearly not everyone was aware of until the mass deletions from dozens of articles took place. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is a lot of the templates were put up individually for TfD. The three templates that that should have really stated are {{Template:Future album}},{{Template:Future film}} & {{Template:Future game}}. These three were all put up for discussion & the general consensus was to keep them & I think we should keep them & continue to use them. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 17:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think all 3 of those templates are useful and should have been kept (id of voted to keep it too), but what makes them more valid to keep than something like a future sporting event? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the TfD procedural argument is irrelevant. We've had previous individual TfDs where some future templates were kept, but we've never had a discussion about whether or not future templates are merited in general. It's possible the previous keeps were influenced by the fact that there are so many future templates, so it didn't seem to make sense to delete just one. Those discussions weren't about the merits of future templates as a whole. That's the point of having a centralized discussion. Let's discuss the merits of the templates now, rather than basing our decision on previous decisions that had a different focus. Equazcion (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were lots of TfDs about Future templates. Some were deleted, some were kept. I started this discussion because I do think that what is true for one Future template is true for all of them. Future sport is no better or worse than Future cars. Anyhow, we're starting to drift off into meta-discussion here. This discussion is about all Future templates, and if you want to get rid of them or keep them as they are, please provide a reason and be ready to argue your point. Pretty please. --Conti|✉ 18:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons we should use some future templates.

1) visual clues that can be quickly discerned are useful for putting something in context. Just as the use of images on Infoboxes can quickly help a person know "where they are at" a visual clue that isn't buried in the text is very useful

2) these templates also inform a reader how relevant and reliable the information is (not in the form of a disclaimer but in a way similar to the other boxes that are used about missing reliable sources, express a viewpoint, or needs to be re-written not in essay form)

We should be doing more to help the reader evaluate the reliability of individual articles on wikipedia - and saying readers should verify everything they read on Wwkipedia, while true, is a shirking of our responsiblity to have higher quality articles - higher quality articles start with informing the reader about the quality and then improving it

3) I've quite a few times (i.e. more than I should have and more than would happen if it was the exception rather than a regularly occurring thing) come across articles with a future or some other "editor only tag" type template and the think I'm looking at shouldn't have that on it anymore - this is EXTREMELY useful information - it tells me immediately that the article hasn't been updated since the future think became a present thing - and prods me to edit the article if I have time, and to use google more to find the information I need than to assume wikipedia probably has it basically right.

I urge you to not just delete all these but to carefully consider the impact on the occasional editor, frequent user that eliminating these quick visual (as in non-text) clues provide. 70.152.235.196 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for providing some arguments. I don't personally agree with them, but I really prefer to respond to arguments than to accusations. :) I'll try to be short, as I've responded to similar arguments at length already in my comments above.
1) I simply don't think there needs to be a visual clue for future things in the first place. Maybe I'm in the minority here, and if I am, then so be it.
2) The problem I see with these templates is that they say "There may be a problem". Which means that a future template will also be on an article that is perfectly fine in every way. If the templates would be used as some kind of cleanup-template, that would be fine by me. But it should be a "There is a problem" kind of template, not a "There may be a problem" one.
3) That is indeed kinda useful. Back then when there were no bots that automatically correct typos and fix formatting issues a bad article could easily be discerned by bad formatting and lots of typos. Nowadays articles can have perfect spelling and formatting, and still be quite horrible. In a way, it's unfortunate that it's not like that anymore, but then again, those bots do ultimately improve the encyclopedia. There is Template:Update after, which pops up an update message after a certain date, which would have the same effect as you describe. And, additionally, you could still find out about non-updated articles by looking at any of the Future categories that should be removed but possibly aren't. --Conti|✉ 18:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]