Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 13



Template:University College Dublin Rugby squad

 * 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) 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)



Navigational Squad boxes for a team that does not participate in a professional league. Most of the names are red links and will most likely stay that way as these players will, for the most part fail WP:GNG and WP:RU/N. Bob247 (talk) 23:31, 13 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.

Varsity Shield Squad 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)



Navigational Squad boxes for teams that participate in an inter-university competition in South Africa. 99% of the names are red links and will most likely stay that way as these players will, for the most part fail WP:GNG and WP:RU/N. Bob247 (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think that listing the squads participating in the competition adds completeness to the article, but, yes, almost none of them would pass WP:RU/N. Can the individual player links be removed, rather than the entire template?
 * I would transcribe the player list into the article itself without link/square brackets. --Bob247 (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete away! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No point having a template consisting of red linked players, most of which will never pass GNG. AIR corn (talk) 05:33, 16 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:Mexico U-17 squad - Mexico 2011(2th Title)

 * 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) 17:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)



This is a youth tournament and most of the articles that link to this template should be deleted since most of the players have not debuted in the senior team.  GoPurple  'n  Gold24   20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

well, no player made ​​his debut in senior team, but they are world champions in their category. Consider it a mistake to remove it, many other athletes (young or developing) have articles and have not won anything, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osc.colin (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the red links will currently fail WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia is not a crystalball --Bob247 (talk) 00:04, 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:Copyright The Estate of MR Bebb

 * 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) 17:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)



No transclusions - this statement would still need an WP:OTRS ticket for each image that it would be used on as it claims a permission that has not been proven Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually it's worse: even an OTRS tag would be of no use because the template does not assert a free license. It doesn't even assert permission for use on Wikipedia: just permission to make the scan. BTW, it is transcluded on File:006 1954 Belted Kingfisher.jpg. —teb728 t c 05:18, 13 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.