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 - Nabla (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musician attn talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Musician attn std talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused templates that dump articles into unused category Category:WikiProject Musicians needs attention. This is strictly for procedural/cleanup-related reasons. JPG-GR (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. I'm sure people can write these out themselves, and probably with more/better information than the template provides. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 18:44, 30 March 2009 (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. — TKD::{talk} 05:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Young Jedi Knights (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heirs of the Force, it was decided to merge and redirect all articles relating to the individual books in the series to the main article on the series. I have now done all the merging and redirecting, and it should now be an obvious job to delete this template. I wasn't sure if WP:CSD#G6 applied, though. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ThemFromSpace 19:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Obvious grounds. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 19:44, 22 March 2009 (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 - Nabla (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The CollegeHumor Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Once again, superfluous and unused. Content doesn't warrant template, everything's already linked, half the articles don't exist. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 15:55, 22 March 2009 (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 - Nabla (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CollegeHumor.com (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Highly unnecessary - not enough content to warrant the template existing. There are three relevant articles that already link to each other where necessary and two more links which have little to do with the subject material. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No purpose. Renata (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2009 (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. — TKD::{talk} 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unneeded — TAnthony^Talk 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not to mention that the first three on that list (and possibly others) are not from American television shows, and most of the linked cities are actually real places. PC78 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cannot see the point of it at all. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, plus the fact that this template is incomplete and could not possibly include every fictional city in American TV anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; most of them aren't even fictional. Huh? Powers ^T 17:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Note: Seven of those do lead to fictional cities where as 5 don't which I've de-linked. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 02:59, 30 March 2009 (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 - Nabla (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HotelBabylon character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused after character mergers. Redundant to ((Infobox character)). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:46, 22 March 2009 (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 --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hotel Babylon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All characters were merged into a list of characters, i.e. this template consists of 11 redirects to the character list, one link to the episode list, and one link to the main article. No need for a template with three legitimate links (main article, char list, ep list). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Greggers ^{(t • c)} 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm mostly indifferent, despite having created this template. Just wanted to point out that there's a chance the character list might be split again in the future, if the show lasts long enough that the descriptions of the major characters become detailed enough to warrant separate pages. The list of characters article is already somewhat long as such pages go. Many other TV shows have similar templates. Also, many shows have individual articles for every episode, so there's a possibility that page might end up being expanded into multiple pages as well. In the end, I won't shed any tears over this, just wanted to bring up the possibility that it might become more useful in the future, depending on how long the show lasts, and how much people decide to add to the articles. Lurlock (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd Rather Keep it. It makes navigation through character list easier, even if they all (at the moment) point to same page. MiKylie (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not seem to do much that the table of contents at List of Hotel Babylon characters does not do... –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – At this time, there is not sufficient material to warrant a navbox. The main article and the lists of characters and episodes are adequately interlinked via in-text links. If articles are recreated about several of the characters (not just one or two), then the template should and can be undeleted. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I add that having it on the characters page may be confusing, as it is a elf-rdirect. - Nabla (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as 3 articles do not need a template. But also userfy if desired, and later expansion really likely.YobMod 09:53, 1 April 2009 (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. — TKD::{talk} 05:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox NCIS season 2 episode list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template with various errors and no indication as to its proposed purpose. The template is not an infobox, it's a list of episodes with redlinks and wikilinks to redirects. I suspect it was never completed. There has been no work on the template since it was created in April 2007. AussieLegend (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only redlinks and redirects to the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 22 March 2009 (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.