Template talk:Removed

Split
Perhaps we should have 2 templates, one for articles, one for sections. They could have differing wording to make it clear that the section version applies narrowly. --Beep2 12:43, 1 January 2007 (EST)
 * I concur.--Voidvector 23:30, 1 January 2007 (EST)
 * Implemented without creating another template. reason, otherwise it uses the previous wording. --Pcj 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For simplicity and smaller template there's rfg-section. 23:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Patch
For recordkeeping purposes, could we have a patch field for this template?

For example, perhaps  could return a statement that says:

The active wiki link to the patch's article, of course, being somewhat important :) I'd do this myself, but I'm not entirely sure I know how ^_^ Hekirou 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason
There appears to be no reference to  in the template code, which I gather to be the "reason" arguments. Certainly, when I tried to provide a a reason, it didn't change the template output in the slightest. I'm going to try to fix this, but I'm completely new at template editing, so apologies in advance if I fuck up. Happily, there's always the magical revert command. Hekirou 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, it worked! The only problem I have now is... is that the best place to put the reason output? But if nothing else, at least it's back. I'll let other people decide if they like where I put it, I'm too happy that it worked to care where you put it :D

One more problem though. What if you just want to say article without a reason? Templates are complicated things, aren't they -_- Hekirou 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You'd add an extra | → removedfromgame. 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion
With more and more things being removed from the game, perhaps it's time to expand this template just a little more, along with the categories.

reason

Though I guess object and item could just share. 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Since we use it with patch-related articles, why not make categories for each patch? Would be interesting to see all articles that were removed in patch 3.1.0. The current category is just a mess.--Iggey (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, kindly supported by User:Coobra.--Iggey (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quests
Looking for clarification: Is a quest Removedfromgame when...
 * only when the quest is completely eradicated (ie actively removed from quest logs)?
 * only when the quest giver is either removed, or no longer offers the quest?
 * or also: when the quest can no longer be completed? (Quest ender removed and/or quest objectives no longer dropped.)

Some for-instances:
 * The Alliance Needs Purple Lotus! is no longer offered, the quest ender has been removed, but the quest still lingers in quest logs hither and yon.
 * Concerted Efforts (quest) is still offered, but the marks are no longer obtainable; presumably legacy holdouts can still be turned in.
 * Stormwind Rendezvous can still be turned in, but is no longer offered. (The followup is also no longer offered.)

I would have no problem with the "no longer offered" definition of "removed". Perhaps "Obsolete" or "Legacy" would be a good descriptor for quests such as Concerted Efforts and One Commendation Signet, though. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:19, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always used it in the 2nd and 3rd cases myself (as well as the obvious first). Purple Lotus already has the notice up top that the event is permanently done and so I think that places it in a subcat of rmfromgame (or, it should...). I think I'd tag Concerted Efforts with it, and then fix the section on 'Patches'. --Sky (t · c) 20:46, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new icon
Hi there. The page is locked for edit, please consider replacing the blank sheet icon (default) with more appropriate one.

--Петър Петров (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you for doing that. 19:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Patch Number Confusion
I just want to get this off my chest since I saw the line "A very common current use of this is for things removed during the Shattering (Cataclysm): " while looking up this template.

The correct patch for the Shattering was Patch 4.0.1, not 4.0.3a (which merely unlocked actual Cataclysm content, not stuff dealing with Old Azeroth). This drives me nuts! >_< Alayea (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only class abilities and such were removed in 4.0.1. The vast majority of content was removed in 4.0.3a. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove expansion option
It's out of date and rarely ever used, especially since it is 2017 and no longer needed especially since we are two expansions in. Just remove the mop tag altogether. 05:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure to understand what you are talking about :( Xporc (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Italics
Add italics to "World of Warcraft"? --Mordecay (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. 11:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Name
Why is this template constantly changed from removedfromgame to removed when it's not the good name? Xporc (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I just find the "fromgame" to be superfluous. As in.. What else would it be removed from? PeterWind (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone opposed to moving this template to removed? Xporc (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Short and to the point. I'd say move it regardless; a redirect can suffice for those who are opposed (though don't see how one would be opposed). 17:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. 21:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)