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 -FASTILY 07:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:EVB color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:EVB lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:EVB stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((s-line)) templates for Eisenbahnen und Verkehrsbetriebe Elbe-Weser. Replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/EVB. All transclusions replaced. There are 2 dependent s-line data modules that should also be deleted. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 10 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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:MRT route (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, and doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support since all subpages under has already been moved - oahiyeel ^talk 03:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No purpose. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:18, 10 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 relisted on 2021 July 9. Izno (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:HVV_color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HVV_lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HVV_stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_left/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_left/11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_left/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_left/21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_left/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_left/31 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_right/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_right/11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_right/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_right/21 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_right/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/HVV_right/31 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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) 16:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Contra 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) 14:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only this one i don't think its necessarily relevant or important for this series. But i do not believe that all chronology templates are irrelevant by default.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contra is not a story-heavy series; the games have little in the way of an on-going, overarching narrative, and they don't even necessarily pay attention to each other (note that both Contra 4 and Rogue Corps count themselves as sequels to Contra III— seems like the RC team just didn't account for 4). Just because a timeline can be cobbled together by paying attention to the dates doesn't mean there's anything to it. Above editors suggest it's useful to readers but I doubt the Contra chronology is much of a concern for the average reader. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR. If there are third party sources that cover this, it's best to summarize it in the prose of the series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see no mention of the "official Contra timeline" which the template notes refer to anywhere in the series article, which makes me suspect this is strictly headcanon. Even if we could pull together an official timeline for the series from reliable sources, as Kawnhr said, continuity doesn't seem to have a meaningful presence in the series, so presenting a timeline like this is, at best, giving the continuity undue weight.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:14, 10 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 relisted on 2021 July 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 16:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Devil May Cry 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]
• Delete Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles just to WP:CONTENTFORK information in-universe, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. I wouldn't object to documenting any reliable third party information about the timeline in the article about the series, assuming it isn't already covered sufficiently. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment @Shooterwalker: actually its not an article. its a template.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If these chronology templates are meant to demystify complex franchises and help the reader understand where each game stands in relation to the other… well, this isn't really doing anything. As the template makes clear, DMC's story is straightforward: each game follows the last one, with the exception of the third game (whose title explicitly positions it as a prequel). The TV show is a bit of a wrinkle but it's not a wrinkle big enough that the series needs an explainer sidebar like this. I think the relations between the games ("takes place X year after Y game") can be handled adequately in prose. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After thinking about it, I don't think this one is inherently necessary. With only 5 titles and only one title being a bit confusing in the chronology, its not something i think needs to be reflected in a template on every article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As Kawnhr says, the chronology for DMC is much too straightforward to require a template like this, even if there weren't issues of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 10 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 relisted on 2021 July 16. Cabayi (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 relisted on 2021 July 16. Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 relisted on 2021 July 16. Cabayi (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 relisted on 2021 July 11. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Izno (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Centennial Broadcasting (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template with three entries. Centennial is slowly selling off their stations. Three entries is not enough to justify a template. I created this template, so I am nom'ing it for deletion. Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC) 01:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per G7 as creator is requesting it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too few entries for navigation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:46, 5 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).