Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 25

< July 24	July 26 >

July 25

Template:LonghornsFootball

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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_19#Template:LSUTigersFootball and for same reasons: Should use succession box. Will incorrectly lead users to generate more pages about a team than are needed. A short discussion at the {{WikiProject College football}} Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Year_Pages_Template shows this isn't needed. Reccommend for delete, set precedence school by sport by year templates are not needed. MECU≈talk 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom.--NMajdan•talk 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The LSUTigersFootball template mentioned above that served the same purpose as this one was deleted.--NMajdan•talk 22:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for now at least. At the moment, only a small portion of the team seasons have individual articles. I don't think that will change in the near future. Therefore, a sucession box, which is expecting "before" and "after" entries to exist, would be confusing. Johntex\^talk 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A succession box doesn't require the previous or next entires to be linked. --MECU≈talk 01:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see this template having no more than one or two uses. → p00rleno (lvl 75) ←ROCKS 10:29, Friday December 20 2024 (UTC)

Delete no more than 4 or 5 uses. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Johntex. This is a content dispute for the editors of the Texas football articles to decide, not something that needs to be decided on TFD. BigDT 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johntex. Has more than 100 uses. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 03:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question Please define these 100 uses? --MECU≈talk 01:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The football team has been around for over 100 years. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 11:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need an article about the 1901 Texas Longhorns? --MECU≈talk 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 uses or 2000... It's not as if the servers are straining under the mass of this template. I don't think a potential issue is a strong reason to delete an otherwise compliant template. If an actual issue of "too many pages about the Longhorns" develops, that would be a time to consider that problem. --Ssbohio 02:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It should be clear that a page for each year isn't needed, and this could only invite that to occur. I further think that since the LSU template was deleted (who has just as an estemed history), no team should have such a template. --MECU≈talk 23:30, 30 July 2006 (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 page.

Southern League navboxes

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 deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four as they are unused - the East and West divisions of the Southern Football League have been replaced by Midlands and South & West divisions, for which there are new templates already. — sjorford ++ 14:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 20:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.--NMajdan•talk 14:27, 26 July 2006 (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 page.

Template:Recreate

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 deletion, redundant. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!)

The template is unnecessary, and various other tags serve the same function. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 03:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPI have to say I disagree with your choice, because there are lots of articles that are not being expanded or edited or cleaned up. Its a template used for articles that are over the limit for a clean-up. As I see there is no other template there that can describe it how I'm trying to. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that you are the same user as User:Can't Nobody Step To Me? Neil916 18:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's had his username changed. --JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cleanup serves the same purpose and more. If the article needs to be largely re-written as a result of cleanup, so be it, tag it with a cleanup and someone will do it. Viridae ^Talk 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Viridae --MECU≈talk 12:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep True it looks very good and normally would be useful, it is not like we Must have another template for the same purpose. (referring to the template viridae mentioned) → p00rleno (lvl 75) ←ROCKS 10:29, Friday December 20 2024 (UTC)
Destroy GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep, rework. Silly question - why is it in Category:Music templates? As for the question at hand, what really would be nice is if it were similar to {{Out of date}}. What it would be useful for are articles like "Video game X will come out on June 20, 2005 and will have these features" or "The 2004 Presidential election will be held on November 5, 2004", etc. {{Out of date}} is more geared towards something where the facts or scientific information has changed, whereas this one could be one where the article was about a future movie, video game, sporting event, etc, that now has come and gone. It looks like that's what the creator was shooting for. BigDT 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Viridae. EVula 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded and unneccesary. The user can simply use {{importance}} or another tag. --DieHard2k5 | Talk 03:48, 28 July 2006 (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 page.