Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 20 - Wikipedia
- 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long and unecessary; precedent set by deletion of other similar templates for other state highway systems. Nominate for deletion.myselfalso 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could a show/hide parameter solve the problem of its size? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I knew how to add it, I would. --myselfalso 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Go to The assisstance section of the village pump and make a request. Someone will be able to do it for you. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I knew how to add it, I would. --myselfalso 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The length of the template is irrelevant, as there is no need for this template to exist at all. A page listing every state route in Pennsylvania already exists, and a category doing the same exists as well. If browsing is an issue, a browse already exists in the infobox. Also, precedent on TFD has supported the deletion of state highway system templates, most recently with Hawaii. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. TMF said it all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Please!!! --myselfalso 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why do we keep deleting these one every two weeks. Why not just round them all up and delete them all at the same time?? --Holderca1 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think this one was recently created. -- NORTH talk 20:37, 24 October 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.
- 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. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Eight Immortals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Replaced by {{Chinese mythology}}, no more use. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The template itself is fine, but it is obsolete now. EVula 06:43, 21 October 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.
- 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 speedy delete per author request. Punkmorten 19:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was created as an example template (by me) and is not needed. No pages link to it. Nominate for deletion. Fedgin 07:56, 20 October 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.
- 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 speedy deletion. Andre (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Breaks #1 and #4 on the old list up there, can't ever see it going to any good use that's NPOV or Encyclopaedic †he Bread 01:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hit it with an ugly stick Has this thing ever even been used? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has †he Bread 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- remove and it's also orphaned. -- Drini 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 30 was only seen for a day, so relisting. TimBentley (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion and for what it's worth, sexiness lies in the eye of the beholder. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, useless. Punkmorten 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per... can I just cite common sense on this? EVula 06:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per EVula. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, smack with ugly stick, and pretend it never existed - this should be a userbox - AMP'd 19:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This template seems uncycloperic for me. Daniel5127 (Talk) 04:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill it with fire. This is wrong on so many levels, that I won't even bother beginning to list them. Titoxd(?!?) 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is brilliant, a violent TFD I'm glad to have nominated this one †he Bread 06:08, 22 October 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.
- 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 // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless template referring to the member clubs of the FA Premier League during the 1992-93 season. On this basis, any template could be made up for each individual season, even if 1992-93 was the first Premier League season. Niall123 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – Elisson • T • C • 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've no opinion on this template, but if you are going to nominate it then {{Original Football League clubs}} should be nominated as well, for the sake of consistency. Qwghlm 19:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not useful or necessary for navigation. Punkmorten 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it does refer to the member clubs of the 1992-93 Premier League season, but that's because THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL PREMIER LEAGUE CLUBS!!! The Premier League is a seperate entity from the rest of football in England, and so the founder members should be so recognised. Hammersfan, 21/10/06, 13.45 BST
- Perhaps a better name for the template and its header would be "Founder Members of the FA Premier League", which would emphasise the point much more. Qwghlm 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The founding members of the Premier League would have actually been the clubs at the end of the 91/92 Division One season. Niall123 16:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The teams are the teams who would have made division 1 for the start of 92/93 season (with the promotions and relegations taking place from 91/92) but you can argue that the creation of the premier league was a major point in English football history as it was a major break away from the football-league. Chappy84 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a better name for the template and its header would be "Founder Members of the FA Premier League", which would emphasise the point much more. Qwghlm 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. ⁂veila# 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Dodge 03:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Consider adding a sentence declaring the club a "founding member of the FA Premier League" in the lead section of each club's article. Poulsen 16:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom †he Bread 05:46, 23 October 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.