Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 2



Template:In-progress tvshow

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the second nomination, the first was closed as "no consensus, keep". The template basically tells the reader that he is reading an article about a currently running TV-show, a fact that is usually mentioned in the article's lead ("The Simpsons is..." vs. "The Jetsons was..."). This alone makes the template redundant. The rest of the text tells the reader that the article may contain information on not yet aired episodes and, gasp, that the article might change over time. This is a wiki, so the the latter is completly superfluous, everything here changes. And if an article contains information about not yet aired episodes, it should mention that in the text anyways. I just don't see what advantage the reader has for looking at this template. Every information presented in the template can also be found in the article. Another thing is, TV series, unlike current events, can run for years, or even decades. Having this template on The Simpsons or Sesame Street just doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. As a result from the last TFD, it was proposed to rewrite/reword the template (which was the main reason for people to vote keep) and create guidelines to determine where this template should be used, but nothing to that effect has happened since. As I haven't understood what's the point of a rewrite of this template is anyways, I'm nominating it here for the second time. --Conti|&#9993; 16:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose the deletion: the point of the template is to make it obvious to the reader. Having the text "The TV show is running" embedded in the text isn't like having a large, eye-popping notice reminding the reader not only that the show is still on, but also that information may change as the show develops. Also, IMO, the Jetsons "is" a TV show is proper - not "was" a TV show - because the Jetsons still exists. There are no new episodes airing, though, so "was" airing is okay. WhisperToMe 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do we want to tell the reader that a TV-show is currently airing with large, eye-popping notices in the first place? Why is that piece of information more important than anything else in the article? --Conti|&#9993; 23:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Why do we want to tell the reader that a TV-show is currently airing with large, eye-popping notices in the first place?" - To make it obvious. Some things don't immediately register with people - Some people do not realize quite obvious things. E.G. there's the current events template (yes, it only stays up for certain periods of time - but it's still the same principle) WhisperToMe 02:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It sure makes it obvious, but why is it so important that we want to make it obvious? Why don't we create "This movie currently airs in cinemas"; "This band hasn't split up yet"; "This newspaper is currently in print" then? The main difference between the current event template and this is, current events last for hours, days or maybe weeks. Current TV-shows last for months, years or even decades(!). These templates are supposed to be temporary, and I wouldn't interpret years and decades as temporary on a project that is only a few years old. --Conti|&#9993; 10:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose (Otherwise known as Strong Keep) Shane (talk/contrib) 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The template is quite useful. Just because it says "is" after the title doesn't mean that it's still current. You could say, "The Jetsons is a show about a family…" but the show is no longer in production. In progress means things are currently going on that may change. Geoking66 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Michael 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above. We've absolutely needed this template during the airing of Simoun (anime) -- a lot of information about the show has been rapidly changing as facts have been revealed, and it's important to communicate that fact.  Do not delete this.  Susan Davis 07:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The fact is that most articles are a "current event" by this definition. If this tag survives then we should also have a tag on every biography of a living person. If people wants to know it is still running they can easily find the information in the infobox. This tag keeps popping up at The Simpsons article. Please tell me, what could be aired now that would radically change the article. The show has been on the air for 17 years. --Maitch 08:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WhisperToMe. jgp TC 08:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I think this could do with a rewording and only be used on shows that are on hiatus etc and when actual information for a follwing season is known. thanks/User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 09:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This has basically been decided on the last TFD, but nothing happened. Currently it's used on The Simpsons, for example. --Conti|&#9993; 10:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the tpl and removed it from Simpsons - Template should now only be used on shows that are on hiatus and when the article contains actual future information. thanks/User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that its been renamed to . thanks/User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to withdraw my nomination if no one disagrees with these actions. This should make it clear that the template does not belong on The Simpsons and other long running shows. --Conti|&#9993; 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you that it doesnt belong an am currently going thru aticles its transcluded to make sure: a) future information is present, b) its palced correctly and c) to update its name if it passes a and b. d) to remove from articles where it shouldnt be (ie. The Simpsons and Seaseme Street) thanks/User:MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep-People need to have the template pop out at them. Seeing it in the text isn't enough as some people skim or skip parts. TeckWiz is 12 yrs oldTalk Contribs # of Edits 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Unnecessary and screws up the article. If people are too lazy to read that's their problem. --Peephole 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Some viewers do not like to see things that have not been shown on TV yet. The article contains spoilers, and people should be warned about that --I_AM_THE_LAM 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what Template:Spoiler is for, right? --Conti|&#9993; 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. However, you can't put "spoilers ahead" above a sentence about new episodes being ordered. 1ne 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WhisperToMe. 1ne 22:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep (Ibaranoff24 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Strong keep, this template is not meant to be on all TV show articles that are currently running, just on those articles where the status of currently running is an issue in some way (such as a show that could drastically change suddenly, an article dealing with a sudden burst of traffic, articles that contain sections that haven't been cleaned up to make it clear that it is an in-progress show, etc). Like the last TfD, it seems issue is being taken with the use of the template instead of the template itself. If an article has no issues related to being "in progress" then simply don't use the template. One size does not fit all, not all templates will work for all articles, and not all uses of a template are good, but that shouldn't shadow where this template helps. Just because you can't use a tool, or because you saw someone using it incorrectly, doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer and get a useful tool ripped out of our hands. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would gladly accept the use of the template the way you describe it, but either the people don't understand it or they don't want to understand the purpose of the template. I have repeatedly removed the template from articles like The Simpsons or South Park, only to be told that I am wrong and that the template belongs on these articles. And as long as people insist that this is the case, I think it should be deleted. Another solution would be to change the template, as User:MatthewFenton has done in response to this TFD (Thanks alot, by the way!). I'm still skeptical and think that this might reappear on the Simpsons or the South Park article tho. Maybe an even clearer wording would help. --Conti|&#9993; 02:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should establish some usage guidelines, in addition to rewording the template a bit, to help keep it from "falling into the wrong hands" err.. articles... And sorry if my earlier comments were a bit harsh, as I can definitely see your point about their incorrect usage being enough reason to delete them. This tool is only good to us if it helps more than it hurts. -- Ned Scott 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Writing some guideline was basically decided on the last TFD, but nothing happened. So, yes, I'd love to see that happen. I still don't think we actually need this template, but I'm fine with the intended usage of it. --Conti|&#9993; 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep --Wolf530 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per everyone else; Pacific Coast Highway {blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS} 00:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the use. Voice -of- All  16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per above. –Dvandersluis 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but use judiciously. It's appropriate in some contexts, such as sports or contests that occured in the past but for whatever reasons are not yet televised (see Professional Poker Tour.  So the template serves double-duty for both a {spoiler} and {current event} template.  But it shouldn't be slapped on to every article about a TV show.  Let the editors of each article decide whether it belongs there or not. OscarTheCat 22:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 page.