The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2006 Manx general election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A single-use template that should be substituted onto the 2006 Isle of Man election article per the standard on other Isle of Man election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use template. Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2011 Cheshire West and Chester Council election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2015 Cheshire West and Chester Council election (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both single-use templates that should be substituted onto the respective articles per the Cheshire West and Chester Council election articles.

• Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:1995 Scottish council elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2003 Scottish council elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2007 Scottish council elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2012 Scottish local elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These four should be substituted onto the respective Scottish council and local election articles per the standard on Scottish regional and local election articles. And these four are single-use and won't require constant updating. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete. Subst to the relevent year election articles. Remove from Local government in Scotland as completely unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Polish local elections, 2018 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2004 (Poland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2009 (Poland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2014 (Poland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2019 (Poland) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish parliamentary election, 1997 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish parliamentary election, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish parliamentary election, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish parliamentary election, 2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish presidential election, 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish presidential election, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish presidential election, 2010 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Polish presidential election, 2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The 2018 local elections template should be substituted on the respective mainspace per the standard for Polish local election articles. The rest below it are unused as each article it was created for use different tables for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate Unused or unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Romanian Presidential Election, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Romanian Presidential Election, 2014 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Romanian Presidential Election, 2019 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Romanian legislative by-elections, 2008-2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Romanian local election, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Romanian local election, 2012 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Romanian local election, 2016 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2019 (Romania) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The Presidential and EU 2019 templates are unused as the articles use different tables for the results. The local and legislative by-elections should be substituted onto the article it is used on as it is single-use. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate. Unused or unnecessary templates (the by-elections one can be called from a second article using the #section function). Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Greek legislative election, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use that should be transcluded onto the 2007 Greek legislative election article per the standard on other Greek legislative election articles. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete Unnecessary single-use template. Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Zagreb Assembly (structure) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This doesn't need to be a separate template and should be transcluded onto the articles it is used on. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete Unnecessary template (it can be called from a second article using the #section function). Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you mean it can be called from the second article, can you implement that first to demonstrate it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See 10th Parliament of Singapore#Result of the Singapore General Election, 2001, where the results table is called from the election article. Number 57 12:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, so it looks like this feature is Help:Labeled section transclusion, and this template was created in 2017 when the feature had already existed. Looks like few know about the feature, and looking at Help:Template now, I'm not surprised, why is it not linked at all from there? Can you guys fix that too? Terse TfDs seem like a raw, WP:BITEy solution to this problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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) Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Croatian local elections, 2009 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian local elections, 2013 (counties) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian local elections, 2017 (counties) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian parliamentary election, 2007 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian parliamentary elections, 1913 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian presidential election, 2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian presidential election, 2009–10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Croatian presidential election, 2014–15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2013 (Croatia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:European Parliament election, 2014 (Croatia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All single-use that should be transcluded as a table on the pages where they are used. The 2013 EU template was a subject of a Tfd from June 19, 2013 where despite being deleted was recreated two years later in 2015. And is also pointless because the article uses a different table for the results. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/subst and delete as appropriate Unused or unnecessary single-use templates. Number 57 11:35, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating the templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16/Subatomic particle subpages and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 16/Subatomic particle subpages 2 for deletion as I've converted Template:Subatomic particle to now use a module. This made all the sub-templates unnecessary and unused. --Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 16 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kingdom Hearts chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.

• (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
• (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
• (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)

In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plot/narrative order is a big component of the Kingdom Hearts series, and each of the titles are sourced within the various articles to support this order. And as the plot of this series can be a bit confusing, for both new and experienced players of the series, this simple template is a helpful aid on the relevant game articles. I also take concern with the nominators blanket assumption for these templates when their points do not necessarily apply to this template to justify a deletion nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add, per Masem's comments below in the discussion about the Metroid template, the Kingdom Hearts series's timeline has been discussed by secondary sourcing (here are two after a quick search: [1] and [2]), and unlike WikiCleanerMan's comment below, the Kingdom Hearts navbox covers release order, for which the games do not correlate simply as other series where a sequel simply continues on from the previous game. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology in this case is not notable. These templates are in the realm of fandom. The articles you provided is not justification for keeping. It is a matter of opinion from a pop culture stance. Wikipedia is not a place for pop culutre point of views. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Kingdom Hearts, I disagree with that assessment. The existing navbox of the series, or even Kingdom Hearts#Games and the release timeline template there, will not convey to a reader that this series does not follow a simple, linear progression from one title to the next. This chronology template isn't in the realm of fandom, someone didn't just throw the list together without care. Your argument appears to simply be that this was created without sourcing to back it up based on some fan's opinion on the matter; that is not the case at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The two main fan wikis for the Kingdom Hearts games do not have a quick, glanceable template showcasing the chronological order of the games. There is a need for this type of information. In fact, Wikipedia articles should strive to avoid the headcanon and fan interpretations sometimes present on fan wikis, and work to verify the placement of the games' storylines with sources. There is no argument to delete these templates since improvement and cleanup can be completed. I would suggest putting in the work to bring templates to a neat, coherent standard instead of simply holding down your "Delete" key and logging off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.142.211 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Kingdom Heart's timeline has been a contentious part of the series and has been covered by primary and tertiary sources. historically, it is a continuous question on what the next title will be and where in the timeline it will take place.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kingdom Hearts is not only a very story-driven series (and subject of much discussion and coverage to that extent), but also one that's notoriously difficult to follow due to regular prequels and interquels. Because the story does not proceed linearly, the standard navbox is simply inadequate and conveying where games sit in relation to each other— just peek at the series page and note how different the list of games is between the "release timeline" and "chronology" boxes. This serves the reader well. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When a chronology is non-obvious from the titles and numbering, I think it's worth keeping around as long as it's verifiable, which this one is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Fan-based desires to know the chronological events of a game are not relevent in a general encyclopedia - such a thing is best suited for a fandom wiki on the series. If you are wanting to explain to the readers the order of these events as defined by the series' developers and producers, the main article should only be used for this; why such a template must be included in every article covering a game of the series is excessive and against WP:UNDUE GUtt01 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Speaking as someone who isn't a series fan, I don't have a strong opinion about the chronology, but I see the merits of it for this series due to its convoluted storyline. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful for navigation. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Final Fantasy VII chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.

• (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
• (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
• (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)

In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one is relevant and important to portray for Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Chronology is an inherent part of the series and vital. There are others i wouldn't support, but this is one i believe is important.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Compilation's whole thing is expanding the FF7 story, so it makes sense to have a quick reference guide for where each game sits in relation to the other. I could see an argument that the template should be deleted and the chronology hardcoded into the main article (and not copied around onto each game), but the chronology should be here in some fashion. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When a chronology is non-obvious from the titles and numbering, I think it's worth keeping around as long as it's verifiable, which this one is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - In this case the series chronology is verifiable, important to the series, and non-obvious enough that a timeline like this is helpful to the average reader. I have serious doubts as to whether the timeline should be a template pasted into each game's article rather a simple list presented with sourcing in the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII article, but on the whole I feel safer voting for no change.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep useful for navigation. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Metal Gear chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this template for deletion along with all others within Category:Video game fictional chronology templates. Three major reasons.

• (A) These templates conflict with the real world tone of Wikipedia. In the video game project, we have made great strides in recent years to reduce the focus on fictional details (characters, plots) and emphasize real world information (development, reception). (WP:VGSCOPE #5)
• (B) I am not confident each chronology can be properly verified, and may include headcanon interpretations. Take for instance Template:Metal Gear chronology which has a long explanation on which media to include, and which to omit. (WP:VERIFY)
• (C) Some of these are not plot-centric franchises, like Metroid or Contra. Sources do not often discuss the "series story" for these franchises. Efforts to link them in some massive chronology was never the intent, and was done after the fact by the developers to appease obsessive fans. (WP:UNDUE)

In short, this content is better left for fanwikis. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is a not a fan site and there already exists a navbox for this video game series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From readers' view. Video game's plot and timeline are some importamt part. People look up it on wikipedia always want to know plot clearly. So when we could just search wikipedia for it easily, why must delete them and force readers to look up on other site, it's unnecessary make matters complicated. Wikipedia should help readers find what they want to know easily, not focus on forms. And we don't know what's problem with chronology template, it's not some over detailed plot or something, doesn't change overall overall neatly format or something.--SimonWan00 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Metal Gear (and Metal Gear Solid) is a franchise notable for its complicated plot, spanning several games non-linearly. It is, for example, featured first in this article about complicated video game storylines. This chronology helps illustrate that fact and contrast it to the real-world release timeline of the games as a relevant facet of the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicodepepper (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reasons given by the nominator do not justify the deletion of the template. The template serves to place the reader, in a didactic way, the chronology of the plot. In fact, the template is very important to bring complete information related to the game. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Metal Gear has a complicated plot that is difficult to keep track of, which is the main reason this template should be kept. Cleanup on the Metal Gear template page in particular can be performed if it is not as neat as the nominator would like. Furthermore, dates in Metal Gear are easily verified. If the nominator considers any piece of the Metal Gear chronology as "headcanon", then they should not edit Metal Gear articles. Keeping the templates readable and neat is one thing, but deletion based on lack of familiarity with the material is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.142.211 (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When a chronology is non-obvious from the titles and numbering, I think it's worth keeping around as long as it's verifiable, which this one is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The chronology of story events in a game series, or any form of fiction, should only be dealt with in the main article for the series; and even then, it should only be done in an encyclopedic manner to explain how the developers, writers and producers decided upon this and why they felt this provides better understanding to those who watch, read or view such items in their respective medium. To include a template of this nature for every title covered in Wikipedia for that series is excessive and against WP:UNDUE GUtt01 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there is nothing wrong to help readers understand what is happening in the series' setting within the relevant entry in the series, whatever its medium, there are often better ways of doing so than just putting out a template for this. Readers would probably want to clearly know why it an entry is considered to take place before a entry (thus being defined as its prequel) and why it is a sequel to another. Setting sections are usually the best place for denoting this detail, while the main article should focus not on placing where the entry occurs chronologically, but also detail why the writers, developers and producers felt it best to do so: did they do so to appease fans; did they do so because they felt further exploration of a character, location, plot element, was needed?

Remember - wikipedia is a General Encyclopaedia, not a Fandom-focused one. To explore chronology in a fictional setting, one must not just focus on the plot details, but also on the decisions by its creators as well. ;;GUtt01 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure anything changes from the previous discussion. We have plenty of sufficient third party coverage of these games' plots and the connections between them. And as a heavily serialized story, one for whom the order of chronology is not obvious to new readers, being able to see how it all fits together quickly at a glance is a useful tool. It's not helpful to readers to have to jump between eight different articles just to see what order they take place in. Furthermore, if it was only meant to live on the series page, why is it a template? The Legend of Zelda and Castlevania have chronologies on their series pages, but they're single tables. By virtue of being a template, it's meant to be displayed on more than one page. (And looking at WP:UNDUE, I'm not sure it fits the bill given the sufficient coverage in other sources.) -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "if it was only meant to live on the series page, why is it a template?" - because it was created by fans seeking to highlight this. They did so from a pop-culture point of view, as someone pointed out, which wikipedia is not in agreement with: the viewpoint must be neutral in stance. Even with coverage on the series by sources, the template should not have been created in the first place; it should have been covered in the series' article, possibly using a table to define the positions where each entry takes place. When I look at the article for the Kingdom Hearts series, I noticed someone actually used a visual image reference to highlight the timeline, which was a good idea, and certainly more effective than a template. Readers might see the template and say "Oh, so the game goes here", but some readers might then ask, "Wait... Why was that put there? Why did the creators do that?" GUtt01 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably might add one more point. Some people say that this template (and any other like it for other game series) is easy for navigation. So here's a question for that reason: why should that be the case, when we got another template for these game series  – like Template:Metal Gear  – which can provide ease of navigation already? GUtt01 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This chronology is confusing, and is also sourced, so I think this timeline template should be retained for ease of navigation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful for navigation. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Part of the reason this is here is that the series is historical fiction with a story order that is unclear by the names and numbering of the games' titles. if someone is reading the plot for MGS3 they wont easily know which page to jump to next. I personally don't like the idea of having to navigate the main series' page to figure out which page continues the story chronologically. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 18:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Incorrect  – the Metal Gear series focuses on an alternate history fiction. Historical fiction implies that the events take place alongside real-world events. If one looks to the first game in the series, one would note that they defined that as 1995 later on, but when the Soviet Union was still in existence. Also, how could anyone reading the plot of MGS3 have any difficulty to move to another entry from that? The current navigation system is not flawed. GUtt01 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well Wikipedia lists alternate history as a subgenre of historical fiction, but really I was talking about the games set as prequels are written around real events and people from history. And currently soneone can't determine the next plot summary chronologically because it's not explicitly stated. You recently added a subsection to MGS2 to explain this in a wordy paragraph in place of what this template does inside a sidebar. _{th1rt3en.talk.contribs} 00:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because Setting sub-section of plot should define the setting of the game world to readers, but chronology is more something for the main article. Defining when chronologically a game takes place is not essential outside the main article - in the main article, I quote an argument surrounding the discussion on these templates from WT:VG: "if understanding that chronology is essential for understanding the plot (and this should include ties to the dev section about where the creative team wanted to go with a story), then the chronology template for a series is unnecessary on an individual game article". GUtt01 (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pp-move-indef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Pp-move-indef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As per the following discussions:

• Template_talk:Pp-move-indef#Adjusting_this_for_non-indef_moves
• Module_talk:Protection_banner#Catonly

I just added a change that allows Module:Protection banner to support adding categories with no visual output. So this template can be redirected to ((pp-move)) (after configuration is added to the module) and Module:Pp-move-indef can be deleted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and discussions. Remagoxer ^(talk) 13:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and discussions. OhKayeSierra (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Rounds of 59 on the PGA Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Decorative NAVBOX titled for a record that isn't a record anymore. 58 is. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all This is a follow-up to a discussion at WT:GOLF#"Rounds of 59 ..." navboxes. There are 6 others to be considered too: ((Rounds of 59 on the Challenge Tour)), ((Rounds of 59 on the European Senior Tour)), ((Rounds of 59 on the European Tour)), ((Rounds of 59 on the Japan Golf Tour)), ((Rounds of 59 on the Korn Ferry Tour)), ((Rounds of 59 on the PGA Tour Champions)). Most fail WP:NENAN. The details are basically a repeat of the list at Lowest rounds of golf#Official tournaments on major tours. This list is surely sufficient, the templates being purely decorative additions to the player articles, a typical example of WP:TCREEP. Nigej (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following related templates to this discussion, per the comment above:

• Template:Rounds of 59 on the European Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rounds of 59 on the Japan Golf Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rounds of 59 on the PGA Tour Champions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rounds of 59 on the European Senior Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rounds of 59 on the Challenge Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rounds of 59 on the Korn Ferry Tour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

_wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all; as above. Unnecessary TCREEP. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, as above. Tewapack (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Elgar symphonies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as redundant/duplicate. Contains only three items (and there are only three symphonies) all of which are also contained in Template:Edward Elgar. In accordance with decisions at Template:Rachmaninoff symphonies and Template:Dvořák symphonies, which were also deleted after being merged to each composer's main template.Smerus (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per talk. intforce (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion on talk page. Suonii180 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per common sense. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:03, 22 July 2021 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Created by LTA. Katie^talk 15:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was plastered on dozens of pages. It is very visible & prominent header on the page and detracts from the readability of articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Snide tag about a non-issue (no edits in the past 30 days). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. An enormous, HOT PINK template saying "This page has not been edited in over 30 days. Have something to add? You can make Wikipedia suck less by editing the page". Has no consensus whatsoever to exist, isn't a standard maintenance template, and seems created entirely to WP:POINT. jp×g 02:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. It's just absurd. Indyguy (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per above comments.--Smerus (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially an unnecessary "please edit me" tag that does not mandate such bright colors. — CVValue (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely pointless. Doesn't follow the standard for article tags, doesn't add anything, creates massive readability issues. firefly ( t · c ) 13:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G3 as vandalism/trolling. I have no idea who's sock they are but the creator of this template is very obviously not a new user - username based around mediawiki functionality, first edit was to create a userpage, second edit was to create a template, then their edits seem to have been a bot-like run of spamming this into articles, including removing all existing clean-up templates. There is no situation in which it is appropriate to tag articles with a massive hot pink box telling readers that our articles are terrible because they haven't been edited recently. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is basically vandalism. Wretchskull (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete What even is this? Danloud ^(talk) 15:09, 16 July 2021 (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).