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 No Consensus -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PBA All-Star National Team 2000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's a navbox that (a) is a burden at the bottom of every page due its auto-open state, (b) is not in a family of similar navboxes, (c) does not link to any article pertaining to its purpose (this only links to the Philippine Basketball Association, which is tenuously related), and (d) it's not an honor worthy of a navbox (WP:NENAN). Jrcla2 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SOFIXIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT! If you want that the template looks similar to the others then update it boldly! mabdul 12:05, 9 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dab button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This little-used undocumented template doesn't seem to provide any useful functionality; it just inserts a confusing graphic into the text. Only used in 45 articles, it appears. Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is highly inappropriate to use in articlespace. Articlespace should use ((disambiguation needed)) . 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be great if someone could write a script/gadget that turns ((disambiguation needed)) into this button, so it's easy to notice a link that needs disambiguating. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You might be interested in User:Anomie/linkclassifier. — Dispenser 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or replace) with something else less evasive. Just seen it in an article, and it looks bloody awful inline with text, very out of place! If it's only used in 45 articles at the moment, as OP mentions, it's not worth retaining. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is actually part of an experiment I'm running to engage new users. The style is from Vector's edit interface so its not as out of place and the foundation has been experimenting with adding graphics to the site. I cannot use ((disambiguation needed)) as it's for links that have thwarted human attempts. — Dispenser 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This buton is confusing, even with knowledge about supposed effect it linked me to File:Disambig.svg. Also [1] is confusing, especially for new users. It may be better to use bot to spam random users with informations about links leading to disambigs Bulwersator (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The licensing of File:Disambig.svg requires that we link to it. Template:Disambiguation needed/editintro requires an overhaul by someone compliant in creating instruction possibly with illustrations. User:DPL bot is already pestering users who add disambiguation links, but avoids new/unregistered users. — Dispenser 18:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the SVG should be removed. I still don't see why ((disambiguation needed)) isn't sufficient for the purpose. (or something that looks like it) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked the author to re-license it and it may be ineligible for copyright as its just simply geometry (e.g. File:USB Icon.svg). ((disambiguation needed)) is only for links that have thwarted a human editor and I was marking links that were easily solved :-). Anyway, research by the usability team and Wikia has shown that readers don't notice our plain text section edit links. And miserable performance of jokes banners such as "[donation needed]" indicate readers, most who don't have AdBlock or NoScript install, simply don't notice these things. So a distracting design was selected in hopes of attracting attention. — Dispenser 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant and confusing since nobody' knows what happens when clicking on that button. mabdul 12:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was very impressed when I encountered this; thought it was some new initiative rolled out by the developers. It is definitely more engaging than ((disambiguation needed)), and perhaps can become part of that template. It's good to have a link to the intuitive dab solver program for those who wouldn't actively seek it. Manual solving of disambiguation links is a pain. Shrigley (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did you ever click on that link: ^{[disambiguation needed]}? mabdul 17:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never, until just now. I just assumed that it pointed to either some policy page or the article talk page, like most of the inline cleanup templates. ((Dab button)) makes me want to click, and I'm sure it does the same for even unregistered users. Shrigley (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct, same link, works also for not logged in / unregistered users. What do we have to change at the ((dn)) link to make you clicking it? maybe using the same image (of the button) after the [ of the dn template? mabdul 18:17, 9 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LOC-image-ammem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recommend deletion. This was created in 2009 and is unused Kumioko (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deuce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron "Deuce" Erlichman this artist is not independently notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not only is the artist not notable, but this navbox wouldn't really help in navigating even if he were notable. It has only two blue links. The rest is just a sea of normal text. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete This artist has released an official mixtape, has over 100,000 likes on Facebook, verified twitter account, a professionally run website, has performed/recorded with many notable artists, has an upcoming (signed) album to be released later this year, is signed to 10th St Entertainment (Papa Roach, Motley Crue, Blondie, Buckcherry, etc) and also played at Epicenter 2010 alongside huge acts, including; Eminem, Papa Roach, Blink-182, Rise Against and more. There's just some of the notable things Deuce has done as a solo artist, excluding the fact that he was also the front-man, lead singer, lyricist and producer for an extremely sucessfull six-piece rap-rock band. TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not about commonly called things named "Deuce". And main article was removed. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until AfDs are over. If they are deleted then this template is useless and should be also deleted. Otherwise keep. mabdul 12:12, 9 January 2012 (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 section.

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 Withdrawn -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/Poland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/Slovakia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/Italy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/WO/Romania (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Air Forces/WO/Blank (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All these templates are unused and have no possibility of being used as the ranks they describe are in the OR (other ranks) pay grades of NATO, not the WO (Warrant Officers) pay grades. The images in the templates have already been duplicated at the OR ranks templates where they will stay permanently. Officer781 (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know but certainly it could be made to be incorporated. Give me time and I can make this work. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, US warrant officer rank wasn't listed at all so I found it at here and added them. Warrant officers always rank above enlisted and below officer (or are Equivalent). I will look into the latest version of the STANAG to clarify exactly what the relationship is but even without that these are not considered among OR ranks in their native military. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Officer781 reverted my edit. These templates has a purpose even though User:Officer781 removes them without adequate discussion. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed them because on the talk page there have already been calls to move the pics to the OR ranks category and then removed (which is why they weren't there earlier. They were removed prior to re-addition which was already discussed on the talk page: Talk:Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers). We need to discuss this here before they would be added back if so decided. This discussion here has implications because many other countries, or almost every country, has warrant officers, and we need to decide either to not include them at all in the WO templates above, or include all of them in these WO templates for a consistent ranking across every country. For the latter, we may not know which ranks go in which pay grade (the OR ranks) since we are no longer following STANAG 2116. My edits were not personal, if you took them to be, I apologise.--Officer781 (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the NATO - STANAG 2116 document [2] Oficer781 is right, and I agree with him. --Nicola Romani (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The templates have a purpose at Warrant officer article. I will agree that a NATO WO classification is flawed I intend to change the structure of the entire rank insignia template series so a deletion is not necessarily. I will speedy delete mark unused stuff afterwards. Please close this as a keep for now so that I do not have to deal with the rather annoying "deletion" notice on the template -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

hmm. I am in favour of making all the countries' warrant officers put together to show their distinction against other NCOs and enlisted personnel. Will retract my deletion proposal.--Officer781 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011–11 West Coast Conference men's basketball standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table, unlikely to be used (see name of template) Bulwersator (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 West Coast Conference soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Patriot League soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Pac-12 soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 NLL West Division standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 NLL East Division standings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 MAC soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 MAAC soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Ivy League soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Horizon League soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Conference USA soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Campeonato Carioca Taça Rio Group B table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 CAA men's soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Big West Conference soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Big Ten Conference soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Big South Conference soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Atlantic Soccer Conference standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Atlantic Sun soccer standings condensed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table, unlikely to be used (see name of template) Bulwersator (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 AFC Champions League Group A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table, unlikely to be used (see name of template) Bulwersator (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 Adelaide Sevens Pool A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Adelaide Sevens Pool B (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Adelaide Sevens Pool C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:2011 Adelaide Sevens Pool D (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused table, unlikely to be used (see name of template) Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Welcome to Wikipedia CoI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless and unused, old experiment without results. Von Restorff (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info Some discussion about it exists at Template_talk:Welcome_to_Wikipedia#CoI_version. It was created December-21-2011, so hardly old. fredgandt 05:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I thought from the off it was a strange mix of themes. "Welcome to Wikipedia! Now behave!". A link to the policies regarding COI should simply be included in the original welcome template. In fact, I'll do that now, since I've been wondering what to put in an annoying gap. fredgandt 05:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Fred! Your edit to the original "Welcome to Wikipedia"-template makes this welcome+COIwarning template even more redundant. Oops, meth is a hell of a drug, I was under the impression the template was 1yr old. Von Restorff (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not an "old experiment", but a new template, currently under development and there is already an ongoing discussion about how it should develop. it is unused, because it is always subst, and it is far from useless. rather than being "Welcome to Wikipedia! Now behave!", it is a much milder notice about CoI than our other CoI templates, which are a real turn off for new, good-faith editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That "ongoing discussion" is between you, me, and one other person. The template transclusion count is 0. Feel free to develop it in your userspace. For now the community can use the normal combination of two templates instead of this thing. If you developed it and it becomes useful, please move it back to the template namespace. If the current COI templates are a turnoff they should be improved, COI editors are welcome on Wikipedia (with certain restrictions in some cases). Von Restorff (talk) 09:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Or, y'know, they could use the single template ((Welcome-COI)), which I much prefer to this template. No offense meant, but the template being discussed here just looks like all the major Wikipedia policies were thrown together and then someone added pretty graphics and some punctuation. The COI notice is buried at the very bottom, and the tone of the message goes from oh-happy-happy-joy-joy-Wikipedia-is-a-warm-and-welcoming-place to bad dog! Bad dog!. Try being like that with a puppy, toddler or someone with a COI. Probably not gonna get you very far. ((Welcome-COI)), on the other hand, is firm but gentle, and keeps an even and consistent tone throughout while saying all the things this template does. If you reply here, please ((lmatb)) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my reasoning directly above. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wouldn't have said it as strongly as Cymru.lass, but he's pretty much right. The W2W template is pretty large as it is, so adding all the COI stuff looks, at least to me, overwhelming. I like the idea, but I just don't think this template does it effectively. Magister Scienta^talk 21:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  She. Von Restorff (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, I'll let it slide. My real-life name is a guy's name, so I tend to get called sir a lot by dentists and the like until they notice I actually have two X chromosomes :P — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 January 2012 (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 section.

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European council institutions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yet another pointless navigation template. This one risks creating confusion between the Counsil of Europe and the European Union, whilst selectively listing certain institutions (and informal gatherings) of both. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No "selectivity" - listed are the EU's Council of the European Union (ministers) and European Council (heads of government/state) and their Eurozone counterparts (Euro Group and Euro summit). All of those are enshrined in a treaty (Council of the EU, European Council, Euro Group) or endorsed by European Council decisions (Euro summit). Those are not merely "informal gatherings" organized by the whim of some president - those are organized according to Treaty of Lisbon Protocol (No 14) on the Euro Group and European Council 9Dec11 conclusions point 10 referencing the Euro Summit Statement of the council - point 31 and annex 1 (annex that defines in detail the arrangement and responsibilities of these structures). About the EU/CoE confusion possibility: both are visually separated; Council of Europe is put there because it's commonly confused with the Council of the European Union; if deemed better the CoE line can be removed - this can be discussed on the template talk page. In conclusion - the template serves a good purpose of putting the four EU/Eurozone ministers/heads of government into perspective. See also here. Japinderum (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unused, messy, and not of obvious utility beyond what a bit of prose describing the matter would accomplish. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's used on at least four of the articles linked in it, but the nominator removed it from them before nominating. Using a convoluted prose to portray the 2-dimensional relationships is much less useful and couldn't be utilized for navigation purposes. Japinderum (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A 2x2 matrix is not a difficult thing to describe in prose. There's nothing preventing wikilinks being used in prose to provide navigation: this certainly isn't any standard form of navigation template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The matrix gives much easier at-a-glance overview. Besides - where would you put that prose? Japinderum (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Comment We currently lack a navbox with a facility for column headings. I recently found another example where this is an issue; ((Storks)) (and similar members of Category:Birds navigational boxes). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((navbox with columns)) supports a col_nheader attribute for each column. Nevertheless, this should be used sparingly (a vastly easier solution for ((Storks)) would be to retitle the template Species of storks by genus, for instance), and isn't the right solution here (as this isn't a navbox candidate). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is completely unused Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2012 (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 section.