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.
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(Talk) 15:32, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Option 1: Implement the template in its proposed formEdit
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)