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 2014 October 19 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:22, 19 October 2014 (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) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Glee (season 5) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Editnotices/Page/ICarly (season 4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of So Random! episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Sonny with a Chance episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wizards of Waverly Place (season 4) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Doctor Who (series 7) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These expired "future episode information" editnotices all refer to series/seasons which are complete, so nobody should be adding future episode information to them. On that basis, I believe these editnotices are no longer required and can/should be deleted. All the editnotices are instances of ((Future episodes editnotice)). DH85868993 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank - these expired notices can safely be blanked. (In fact they appear blank at the moment anyway, because expired notices automatically do not display.) I'm not sure of the benefits of deletion - a possible disadvantage is that it hides the history from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: They appear blank already because they are expired, and there is really no need wasting resources adding another revision to blank them or delete them. Just leave them be. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(e • t • c)} 01:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, deleting templates does save some resources in that it makes public dumps smaller. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm wondering why Future episodes editnotice isn't used any more. Should there be a discussion on its use? 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Performance isn't a reasonable argument to not delete pages (especially as the server cost for removing the TfD notice and of creating a talk page saying "this TfD was closed as 'keep' would dwarf the cost of actually deleting the page). These pages no longer serve a purpose, and the history isn't useful. (Also, there's a chance of confusing bots or the like, who won't necessarily be able to tell that the editnotice is irrelevant. I remember deleting a few redundant MediaWiki-space pages several years ago to avoid confusing User:MediaWiki default.) It's pretty minor either way whether these pages exist or not, because they aren't doing anything; but I'm in favour of deleting them, precisely because they aren't doing anything. --ais523 12:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and to save server space. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2014 (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 keep (NAC). Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western Ganga kings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

single use template. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not anymore. Keep Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Pied Hornbill (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2014 (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.