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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Resident Evil chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has been recently created and has many issues: A) it is an indiscriminate collection of information. B) it contains fancruft, which is uninteresting to the general reader. C) it contains original research as there are no third-party, reliable sources that support this extremely detailed chronology; D) the chronology of the Resident Evil video game series is very complex, with multiple storylines taking place at the same time, so all the entries cannot be put in the same timeline; for example, Resident Evil 3: Nemesis takes place before and after Resident Evil 2, not just before that game like the template says. E) Several links are redirects or don't exist. F) it is redundant to Template:Resident Evil, which is a much better-designed template. Niwi3 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A) It is not an "indiscriminate collection of information". It is a comprehensive overview of the canonical entries of the Resident Evil game series, listed in story order, which B) is not uninteresting to the general reader (which I am, I have no investment in the Resident Evil saga and have never played any of the games) as the series has such a complicated interwoven plot, the genereal reader may immediately feel lost as to what takes place when. C) No original research was involved, all comes from third-party sources which are listed. D) The template clearly DOES state that Resident Evil 3: Nemesis takes place before and after Resident Evil 2 (September 28-October 1, 1998 vs September 29-30, 1998). E) All the links exist... F) it is in no way redundant to Template:Resident Evil as the two serve a completely different purpose and both contain things that the other doesn't. As for the design it is consistent with the standard for Video game fictional chronology templates on Wikipedia. G) Thank you very much for NOT notifying me you were nominating the template I spent hours slaving over for deletion as common courtesy would demand you do... Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using a template to describe a complex chronology of a video game series like Resident Evil is not the way to go. Things should be put into context and supported with reliable sources. And when I mean reliable sources I mean third-party, published sources (written by reliable authors) that are independent of the subject, not user-submitted wikis like the Resident Evil Wiki or the Giant Bomb wiki page for the series. Also, you added these sources after I nominated the template for deletion. In any case, templates should only contain links to individual articles that exist, and they should avoid details like fictional dates. Keep in mind that templates mainly serve as a navigation tool. If you want to detail the chronology of the Resident Evil series, creating a new section in the Resident Evil article is the best option. You can use the The Legend of Zelda article as an example. And I'm sorry for not letting you know about this nomination as I assumed you would be whatching the page. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: given the structure of the series, a chronology is probably necessary on the main series page as a prose section. But as it stands, the template looks unwieldy and convoluted, and the series itself has caused it to be like this, so it is an unsolvable problem. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Something like this is better suited for the Resident Evil wikia page than Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main Resident Evil article as prose. I for one welcome the addition of a chronology, which I think is sorely lacking from the main article (compare to God of War (series) for example, which has a clearly outlined game chronology) but I don't think a template is the way to go. I also disagree that this would be uninteresting to the general reader. I think this is exactly the type of thing a general reader would be curious about. And not notifying the page's creator? That's bad form. Bertaut (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template was recently created, I assumed that the creator would be watching it. But I agree, I should have left a message in the creator's talk page just in case. As for the idea of merging the content of the template into the Resident Evil article, I'm not against it as long as the content can be supported with reliable sources, similar to the chronology of The Legend of Zelda. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, per deletion of other chronology templates. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all the previous discussion about chronological video game templates. This table could be very well fitted into the Resident Evil main article though. --Soetermans. T / C 12:29, 29 April 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angelyne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only three links. WP:NENAN. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• weak delete, the articles are well-connected through the succession links in the infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:59, 27 April 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:33, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 1. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:32, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 May 9. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:08, 9 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fort Worth Cats roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Defunct team. Spanneraol (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 18:57, 27 April 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). No further edits should be made to this section.