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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:ElderScrollsTimeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's the Template: VG timeline that allows in-article editing of the timeline and has a visual element to it. I actually preferred this one. Soetermans. T / C 07:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the Fallout one, this wasn't used on The Elder Scrolls article to begin with. --Soetermans. T / C 07:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It seems the Template:Video_game_timeline is more useful in terms of the visual elements.  Honette 07:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fallout timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's the Template: VG timeline that allows in-article editing of the timeline and has a visual element to it. I actually preferred this one. Soetermans. T / C 07:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 13. Primefac (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Edinburgh Crossrail (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as seeing as the article was just merged with Borders Railway, it is no longer needed. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It actually belongs in the (sub)section Borders Railway#Edinburgh Crossrail, as it is relevant to the article, and the Edinburgh Crossrail service^{Useddenim (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)} is not shown on the main diagram. Useddenim (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No longer needed. The previous service to Newcraighall has been incorporated into the Borders Railway. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 09:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was merge as proposed. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Gastrointestinal surgery (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Digestive system procedures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Gastrointestinal surgery with Template:Digestive system procedures.
Duplicate scope, no need for two separate templates. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom. --NSH002 (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 13. Primefac (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Trailer sailers and Trailer yachts worldwide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broad and unclear scope. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 20#Template:Keelboats worldwide. Smartskaft (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is clear use of the template. It has value and can co-exist peacefully with any list or category fulfilling a similar function. Fiddle Faddle 09:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Virginia Slims of Columbus tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox with zero links to tournaments. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Defunct tournament, so even if articles are created there are only two articles to navigate between, best dealt with by "See also" section. --NSH002 (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was relist at Nov 13. Primefac (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Helper (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Helper flag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Helper infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Helper inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Helper stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Helper succession (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Helper userbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) (Withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Template:Helper warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions, and apparently, not intended to be substituted. Confusing use, and unlikely to be used, and redundant to the functionality of several templates in Category:Wikipedia help templates. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: These templates are used on thousands of templates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buaidh: I stand corrected, to an extent: Template:Helper has 27 transclusions (not counting itself and its doc file), and Template:Helper userbox has over 4000 transclusions. For this reason, I am withdrawing Template:Helper userbox from this nomination for now solely due to its high amount of transclusions, but change my vote for Template:Helper to "substitute and delete" due to lack of usefulness since it returns nothing but a string of text and links (sort of like a canned response hatnote). However, the rest, not counting themselves and their doc pages, have 0 transclusions total, so my "delete" stance still applies to those. Steel1943 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all less Template:Helper and the withdrawn Template:Helper userbox, substituted as appropriate. These templates don't appear to be particularly valuable--people who need help with anything can always use another of our various help templates or even something such as edit protected to get help.

  Template:Helper should redirect to Template:Help me IMO. No prejudice against deletion prior to redirection. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  These Helper templates send questions about templates directly to WikiProject Templates with preformatted inquires. This procedure is far more likely to produce specific answers to difficult template questions than a generic inquiry via Template:Help me. Please click on the link on the last line of documentation of Template:Epi for an example. Yours aye,  Buaidh  04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "These Helper templates send questions directly to WikiProject Templates [...]" is a fact. "This procedure is far more likely [...]" is not, and I find it just as likely that someone using the ((help me)) scheme, which is more generic and thus more likely to get an answer quicker (another not-fact, though we can suppose it), would be able to move forward with the change they are seeking. --Izno (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  At the least, Template:Helper is too generic a name where specifically it is about templates and should regardless of any of the others be re-developed or more likely redirected, preferentially to my already-suggested target. --Izno (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Valmikism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Irrelevant template. Claims to be with the main article as Balmiki sect which in itself is unsourced. Also, this negolism of "-ism" is not popular, if at all not a hoax. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that "Valmikism" is a real or notable topic.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by creator request. - Nabla (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Select (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating this per recommendation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Template:Select. It's not clear how this template is intended to help improve the encyclopedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I realized this too. Yep, remove it. I will use one in my own userspace. Sorry. Frank (User Page) (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).