Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 11



Template:AAFL

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)



Navigation template for the All American Football League, a proposed league which never played a game. It was set to begin in 2008, then 2009, then 2010, then 2011. Their website still says it will start play in "spring 2011". The team pages have all redirected to the main article for two years. The only article is for its 2008 AAFL Draft. Two articles and basically no prospects for any more ever doesn't make for much of a template. B (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Navboxes are there to move between articles. If all the links point to the same page then there is no need for a navbox in any case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - of no value, since it only links between two articles. Robofish (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Teargarden

 * 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 — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 17:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Links related articles together which is the purpose. see no reason to delete. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems useful enough, although nothing in article space currently links to it. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.

Template:Shades of spring green

 * 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 — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Spring green is not a common color. Most of the colors in the template are alread listed in Template:Shades of green, Template:Shades of cyan, or another template. Was previously TFDed a year ago, with a hung result. The only argument for keeping was that spring green is one of the 12 tertiary colors, but it should be noted that it is one of the few that actually has a template (magenta, a secondary color, doesn't have a template); and the "tertiary colors" argument is outweighed by the redundancy of many of these colors to other templates, and the unlikelihood that anyone would search for spring green in comparison to, say, brown, which isn't even a tertiary color  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion as a point of reference: Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_17 VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that in that discussion, only one person voted "keep"; he just commented twice  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the old tfd was not closed correctly, or decided on an unmerited argument.  30 degrees is an arbitrary angle.Curb Chain (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we bring up Template:Shades of chartreuse in this discussion? It was nominated last year along with Spring Green; and also resulted in no consensus (which defaults to keep; but an article previously closed that way can be renominated at any time).  I think there's a slightly better case for chartreuse than spring green, but probably doesn't need to be around either.  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  18:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Category:Shades of spring green did have a consensus to delete Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 26, even though the template did not  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is now three days overdue...No one has said keep in this discussion; two people have said delete...can this be closed already?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.