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 debate was DELETE. I have subst'd the one remaining transclusion to avoid context breakage. Splash - tk 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Bond soundtrack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template has been replaced by ((James Bond music)). — _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace all instances and then delete, or redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace as superseded & delete. SkierRMH (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Replaced completely. Vikrant Phadkay 14:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Replace superceded by music template ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]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 debate was DELETE. I have subst'd the one remaining transclusion to avoid context breakage. Splash - tk 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Bond themes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template has been replaced by ((James Bond music)). — _{El Greco}^(talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace all instances and then delete, or redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace as superseded & delete. SkierRMH (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Replaced completely. _{El Greco}^(talk) 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace - superceded by the combined music template ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]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 debate was DELETE. -Splash - tk 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religion in Family Guy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pointless theme-based template. Family Guy articles already have multiple navigational templates. This is overkill. Suggest deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Religion related episodes in Family Guy have caused controversy and it is useful to organize them in such a manner. The template is small and unobtrusive placed at the bottom of the page. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Perhaps you would like to add a (sourced) section to Criticism of Family Guy on this controversy. This tagging is original research based on one of many sub-themes for which an indefinite number of templates could be made. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other Wikipedians seem to appreciate this type of template, at ((Religion in The Simpsons)). I don't think it's really a matter of OR, instead it's a consensus among the editors involved in the template, at least at that template. Again, it's small and unobtrusive, I don't see what the big deal is here. If we get to a point where there are 1,000 such related templates I could see it being an issue, but I do not see that as a likely possibility. I'd love to hear from some other editors on their opinions about this as well. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Some of them are unsourced. How is Death is a bitch an episode that has something to do with Christ? TheBlazikenMaster 17:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems unnecessary to have it and just because The Simpsons have one doesn't mean Family Guy need one.It is unorganized and not sourced with questionable episodes Death Lives or Death Has a Shadow. --DWP17 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, The Simpsons and Family Guy are different animated sitcoms, with totally different people working on it. TheBlazikenMaster 09:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some of the episodes mentioned don't have religious references that important in their plots. Martin B 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inclusion appears massively open to POV conflicts.SkierRMH (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It doesn't need to be deleted, just revised. 216.130.83.205 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)SomeX[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 debate was DELETE. Apparently this was just made for the one user, who hasn't edited since shortly after making it. -Splash - tk 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3rrMrB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated by Template:uw-3rr as part of WP:UW. Suggest deletion and redirect to new template. — Papa November (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as deprecated - don't see need to redirect. SkierRMH (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2007 (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 debate was DELETE. -Splash - tk 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PPAP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the template for WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. All articles that use to use it are now being added to the project via the template ((WikiProject Canada|ppap=yes)), which has the advantage of using WP:1.0 assessments, as well as being able to add the article to relevant provincial wikiprojects, such as WikiProject Ontario. For other templates replaced by the ((WikiProject Canada)) template, I just deleted them right away when no articles were using them any longer, but this template has had debate as to whether it should be deleted, so I'm bringing it here for outside opinion. Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - because it seems to be basically unused and redundant. Could be turned into a redirect if required. John Carter (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete improved functionality implemented through ((WikiProject Canada|ppap=yes)), depreciated, all transclusions migrated.--Qyd (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and per above. Cheers, CP 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vehemently oppose this. Should never have been changed as there was no consensus to do so. GJ (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because ((PPAP)) and ((WikiProject Canada|ppap=yes)) do the same thing, there was no need to have both on the same talk pages, and no consensus was required for users to delete one of them in each given article. Through this process, the ((PPAP)) template has gone out of use, and the debate here is about whether or not there is any reason to keep it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the new Canada banner doesn't have the full explanation that the PPAP banner does. I think artic gnome is trying to own the various wikiprojects. GJ 15:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think we should change the wording in the template, you are perfectly free to make such a sugestion. Some of the information would be redundant if we included it for every project in the template, but I'm sure the community would be open to further defining the projects within the template. As for me trying to own the projects, I have made efforts to consult projects when the transfer would affect them, but in the case of PPAP, the change-over did not require you to do any re-assessments nor move any pages, so I thought that announcing the changeover to the project would be enough. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I vehemently support this, as per Qyd's comments. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. --Kmsiever (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The improved Wikiproject Canada template expands upon and supersedes this template. I'm not sure it would have value as a redirect, or at least I worry that having to add arguments would make a redirect too cumbersome for practical use. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 20:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated & included in parent template. SkierRMH (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Arctic Gnome. Significant advantage to use ppap parameter of ((WikiProject Canada)) instead. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was Redirect per previous debate. Papa November (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advert2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated and replaced by Template:uw-advert2 per WP:UW. Suggest redirect to new template. — Papa November (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to the superseding ((uw-advert2)). --Kralizec! (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was Redirect per previous debate. Papa November (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advert3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated and replaced by Template:uw-advert3 per WP:UW. Suggest redirect to new template. — Papa November (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to the superseding ((uw-advert3)). --Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was Redirect per previous debate. Papa November (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advert4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated and replaced by Template:uw-advert4 per WP:UW. Suggest redirect to new template. — Papa November (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to the superseding ((uw-advert4)). --Kralizec! (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2007 (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 debate was NO CONSENSUS. Clearly not going to be deleted, and with so many links outright deletion is not even an option, since the meaning of many comments would be summarily changed. The same problem exists with the redirection options, unfortunately and so that is not a viable solution either. Finally, the point that people still use them is a valid one, and there is no reason to dictate which a particular editor must use. I close as no consensus, because the exact disposition of this particular title might yet be decided otherwise: for example, re-link every existing link to a new version of this page under a new title (by moving it there to keep history) and only then deleting or redirecting this. -Splash - tk 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TestTemplates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated and superseded by WP:UTM. Contains the old user warning templates, which have all been replaced by a unified set at WP:UW. I suggest deletion, and updating all links to it, as WP:UTM is not a template itself. — Papa November (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this template as the warning templates listed on it were depreciated by the WP:UW standardization project. All instances of ((TestTemplates)) should be replaced by a link to the superseding list at WP:UTM. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - whilst the template itself is deprecated, the name may still be used as a reference, so retaining the page as a redirect to WP:UTM would probably be a good idea. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nice to have a reference. We just need to inform users who still use them, to instead use the WP:UW. As I don't expect the templates to be deleted - there are probably unsubsted instances out there, both in archives and on talkpages- we don't stop the "oldfashioned users" from using them if this matrix is deleted, we just lose the context, and some ideas. Greswik 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per GW Simulations.Ngchen 16:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I appreciate Greswik's point, but I think this is more likely to create confusion than to be useful.--Kubigula (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still has useful material, and some editors prefer several of those. Agree with Greswick. Tvoz |talk 16:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The page is deprecated and should be redirected to UTM to avoid confusion. If needed the page could be placed in a subpage of UTM as an archive. --Hdt83 ^Chat 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea - as long as it remains clearly accessible through a link on the new page, like is there now. By the way - do we have any reason to think this has been causing confusion? The new templates are great, but sometimes one of the old ones is more useful, and this chart gives context and makes it easier for editors who still use them from time to time. Tvoz |talk 08:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This has been discussed many times before, and each time we've concluded that there is no pressing reason to force all users to use the newer user template messages. Many users, such as myself, still prefer to use testtemplates, and I'm really getting tired of having to watch these templates so they don't suddenly disappear because someone thinks they're no good anymore. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And even though it is in the template namespace, this probably should have been listed in WP:MFD instead. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 5 December 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete, per consensus already, and previous debates. --Maxim_(talk) 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) These roster templates for championship teams have been tfd'd and deleted numerous times now. They are a clutter on player pages and there is already a list of who was on that years team on the years page for that particular team. Players liked Henri Richard would have 11 for the various Stanley Cup teams he was on and Igor Larionov would have 3 for Stanley Cups and 3 for medals just as an example. I only managed to find three but I am pretty sure there are more TFD #1, TFD #2 and TFD #3 — Djsasso (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as you say too many of these templates would overly clutter articles. -- JD554 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Each player article mentions that they were a member of their gold medal winning team, and that article lists the rosters. Having a direct template only serves to clutter the article. Resolute 15:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 20:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Excellent example of the kind of thing that should be handled by lists rather than by templates. Bearcat 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. GJ 04:16, 2 December 2007 (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.