Template talk:Future album
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Automatic sorting into Category:Upcoming albums
Okay, the problem right now is that there are bands being automatically sorted into Cat:Upcoming albums, because nothing in this template suggests that it shouldn't be used in non-album articles. Looking at other future release categories with automatically-sorting templates, some categories seem to be fine, like Cat:Upcoming films or Cat:Computer and video games under development; Cat:Upcoming television shows, however, is sorting people into the category as well.
I don't think there's centralized discussion for all upcoming product templates, so I'm bringing up the issue here, because there's got to be a lot more tracking of upcoming products in articles about musicians than those about directors or studios. (If only because musicians publicize their activities much more frequently.) –Unint 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've come to say the same - it's resulted in my bot tagging Iron Maiden as an album! Automatic categorisation isn't a good idea I think. I'm going to be bold and replace auto cat with a parameter. --kingboyk 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed the category altogether, and am now using AWB to add it back into album articles only. --kingboyk 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed the problem. If the template is to be used in a section {{future album|Section}} is to be used.--AshadeofgreyTalk 17:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the category altogether, and am now using AWB to add it back into album articles only. --kingboyk 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should this template exist at all?
It would seem that it encourages articles which violate WP:NOT/Crystal Ball, and I can't think of many circumstances in which an article that is appropriate for it wouldn't violate WP:NOT (expect perhaps something like Chinese Democracy). Maybe it should just go? Artw 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This template should stay
However, I believe it should indicate that information shouldn't be suggested as being "speculative", because that renders the article it's placed into either invalid or unreliable.
With all forthcoming releases, only certain information should be included.
Any speculation should either not be included or should be included in its own section indicating clearly of any speculation which would, of course, as rumours turn to fact or fiction are either moved into seperate sections within the article or simply removed altogether.
I believe we need a seperate template to head this speculation section that indicates that it is speculation purely and in that nature, its content is highly volatile and not considered a reliable source.
That's if we include that at all.
That my two bobs. 124.181.99.223 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)!!
