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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:City of Angels soundtrack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A track listing for a various artists compilation album is not a suitable topic for a navbox. Songs/artists have nothing in common with each other other than their appearance here. --woodensuperman 14:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is the sort of information that belongs in an article's body, not as a nav template. Warren -talk- 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Only a couple of the songs that have articles were even written for the film. Actual usefulness of this navbox is quite limited. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:35, 14 December 2017 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Star Wars (film) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:The Empire Strikes Back (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Return of the Jedi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Star Wars: The Force Awakens (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Rogue One (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Star Wars: The Last Jedi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Solo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Star Wars Forces of Destiny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary excessive duplicate navigation. There is a main ((Star Wars)) navbox, plus navboxes for ((Star Wars characters)), ((Star Wars music)), ((Star Wars planets and moons)), ((Star Wars vehicles)), etc, etc, etc. We don't need one for each film as well, which duplicates the characters (have a look at the R2-D2 page to see why this is a problem), locations, ships, etc, etc. --woodensuperman 13:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom.— TAnthony^Talk 15:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better to use the other navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, looks like a case of someone not understanding what navigation templates are for. The editor who created these templates hasn't really done much else on Wikipedia except for create these templates and insert them into dozens of articles. Warren -talk- 15:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mean user Dmoon1, who created the early templates in 2006, not true. He or she, who hasn't edited since 2009, seems like they were a very active editor in many subject areas. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Warren was talking about Qäsee, who created the last four templates on this list (the most recent). This editor is indeed persistent with crufty templates, categories, and article content (and no edit summaries, EVER), but in this case there was a seven-film precedent of existing templates before he/she started creating and implementing them.— TAnthony^Talk 15:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agree with nom. No need for these individual nav templates for each film when the other Star Wars templates cover everything. - Brojam (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now (struck per reply), the claim is that everything on these templates is a duplicate, a very quick look at just the first template brings up Han shot first. Where else is this listed? And this would give deletionists the "reason" to remove Star Wars templates from individual books, fan films, etc. with the claim that items on lists aren't actually listed on the templates (a Catch-22 of a reason that they somehow got into the guidelines as 'biodirectional' or something), so this could mean a mass removal of any Star Wars templates from articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like this that is not in another navbox could be added to the main ((Star Wars)) navbox, or one of the other navboxes if this is more appropriate. Books and fan films, etc, already have dedicated navboxes. I've just spotted that Star Wars Uncut also isn't on another navbox, this would appropriately be added to ((Unofficial Star Wars media)). --woodensuperman 12:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and good find on the uncut film. I'll put the 'Han shot first' page on the main template and see what occurs (EDIT: It fits well as a subsection). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these wayward links, there shouldn't be (m)any more!— TAnthony^Talk 15:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only other one is Star Wars: Behind the Magic. Video games or main template? --woodensuperman 16:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what does anyone think of re-purposing ((Star Wars planets and moons)) to ((Star Wars locations)) so we can add Mos Eisley and Mos Eisley Cantina there rather than the main template? --woodensuperman 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the planets and moons is a well-defined topic. Mos Eisley Cantina seems iconic enough to belong on the main template. In fact, there are only 11 entries on the Planets and moons template, why not bring those to the main and jettison that one too so the planets and moon articles can have the main template and not a small limited one. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Clearly someone misunderstanding the purpose of navboxes. Lazz_R 14:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with nominator and other comments that these are creating unnecessary duplication.Dunarc (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I do admit that these navboxes are very much duplicates to the main Star Wars navbox, but I think we need to set up some type of navboxes for Legends and Canon universes to avoid crowding one navbox. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2017 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The navbox is no longer necessary as all the links now redirect to a non-existent section that was culled for being fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless navbox, as each link redirects back to the main article. JIP | Talk 08:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, all redirects. Frietjes (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless. --woodensuperman 14:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the links are redirects. - tucoxn\^talk 14:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Hilariously useless obsolete FANCRUFT junk. Please delete per snowball clause  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:49, 15 December 2017 (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).