Template talk:ESPN NFL
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Edit request from 777sms, 8 June 2011
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
+category
Category:Sports external link templates--777sms (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- →Template:Espn nfl/doc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit request
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template is fully protected. Change protection level to Semi-protected or Unprotected like other template Template:ESPN nba, Template:ESPN nhl, please.--777sms (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- This template currently has fewer than 100 transclusions, so I have removed the protection as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move per request. As CWenger notes, this would very likely have been acted upon as an uncontroversial request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Espn nfl → Template:ESPN NFL – Caps is correct. See Template:ESPN NBA, Template:ESPN NHL.--777sms (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support, but why not Template:ESPN NFL? Also, you should list uncontroversial requests like this under WP:RM#Current requests. It is highly unlikely that anybody will seriously oppose these moves, so listing them there is just to ask an admin to move them. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your information. :)--777sms (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see why it would be ESPN nfl instead of ESPN NFL... 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support as previous consensus has decided that these sort of moves are somehow beneficial. Jenks24 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.