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).

The result of the discussion was Delete all. In addition to the consensus here, a similar discussion at a previous TfD showed extremely strong consensus that navboxes should not be created for the Caribbean Cup squads. ~ Rob^Talk 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Curaçao squad 2014 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jamaica squad 2014 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Trinidad and Tobago squad 2014 Caribbean Cup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We only include squad templates for Major Tournaments. The Caribbean Cup isn't a Major Tournament. This was previously discussed a couple months ago. See here. – Michael (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hi Michael, thank you for raising this issue as it was brought to my attention just yesterday. However, I honestly don't understand this ruling. I have followed the link of the previous discussion above and did not find the previous discussion very productive. Why would the Carribean Cup not be considered a major tournament? The Caribbean has a population of roughly 40 million people, add the Guianas (which are also CFU member nations) and you are at roughly 50-60 million people. There are 23 FIFA and CONCACAF member nations which participate in the qualifying process for this tournament, of which eight make it to the final tournament. Furthermore this is the only way Caribbean nations can qualify for the CONCACAF Gold Cup and ultimately the FIFA Confederations Cup. Please keep in mind that CONCACAF is the only Confederation which encompass three geographical regions, North America, Central America and the Caribbean, so this tournament does not compare to a regional tournament which might take place in any other Confederation. The caps of the players who attend this tournament are valid. The tournament is very valid, it is one of the oldest and most important in the Caribbean, and it ties in directly with other tournaments for which there are navigational boxes. It would be nice to be able to navigate between players of the individual squads who have participated in this tournament in my view, and I am sure there are others who feel the same way, seeing how I am not the first to have created these navigation boxes. I hope this gets reconsidered since this tournament is a very important piece of Caribbean footballing culture, and it would be nice to acknowledge it, and make navigation between the individual players possible. It is not some friendly tournament, but a part of the FIFA pyramid and CONCACAF construct. Navigational boxes enhance the user experience on this site, they help bring a better understanding of the subject matter and do not detract from any other subject matter on this site, or make any other tournament mentioned less important. I find that these actually help make better sense of the CONCACAF Gold Cup and squad selections along the road. Thanks again, and I look forward to your response. (Subzzee (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete - Per consensus here, these are more of the same, non-championship winning squad templates for a competition that is not at least a top-level continental tournament. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is where the consensus falls short in my view: Of the 42 FIFA recognized countries who compete for placement in the Gold Cup. 23 countries + 6 territories compete to qualify through the Caribbean Cup. That is more then half of the countries that make up the CONCACAF Confederation. This is the biggest tournament in CONCACAF in the build up to the Gold Cup. Much bigger then the Copa Centroamericana which only have 7 competing nations. I still don't understand why this leg of the continental tournament which crowns the champion of the biggest geographical region (most countries) in its Confederation, is not considered important enough. I also don't think comparing this tournament to the Pacific Island Games is a fair comparison at all. The Pacific Islands have a total population of 2.3 million people. The Caribbean and the Guianas constitute for roughly 50-60 million people. Also the Pacific Islands Games don't mean anything at all in the scheme of World Sports, when this tournament is in fact the first major tournament for the majority of the member nations in the CONCACAF Confederation. It is certainly the most important tournament in the Caribbean and of great cultural importance. This is the English Wikipedia after all, which happens to be the most spoken language in the region. (Subzzee (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• delete "Curaçao" and "Trinidad and Tobago", since they didn't win the cup. indifferent for "Jamaica", since they won the cup. Frietjes (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why exactly, does it make a difference if the tournament was won or not? Out of 23 countries, 8 made it to the final tournament. the top three advance to the Gold Cup. Do you not find it a useful tool? I am not for creating navigation boxes as some sort of badge of honor. I actually find them a useful tool to navigate between individuals who participated in the final tournament. It is a helpful navigational tool when making edits, and also helps give a chronological context to squad selections. I find them informative and practical, and see no reason why this tournament should't have navigational boxes. please explain your indifference if you don't mind. Why is a navigational box for one team merited and the other not? Thank you in advance. (Subzzee (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The reason is to avoid navbox clutter. I don't see how this would be a useful aid to navigation along with umpteen other navboxes for different iterations of tournament. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - minor tournament, no need for navboxes, as past consensus shows. GiantSnowman 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Caribbean is not minor at all, nor is the tournament. It is broadcast in 24 countries through SportsMax and streamed online to 127 countries. I am sure of the millions of users Worldwide who use Wikipedia, you will find people who find these navboxes helpful. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was keep but edit the entries to limit the scope. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Microsoft Windows typefaces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:NAVBOX 1, 2, 3 and 5. The list and categories are sufficient. Alakzi (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Many of these were commissioned by Microsoft specifically for Windows (Verdana, Georgia, Tahoma, Calibri, Segoe, Trebuchet, etc.) so providing a single navbox to group them in to make readers aware of other articles makes sense. I would compare the fonts bundled with Windows to the applications that come with it - a specialised set of included features - and there are at least two comparable included navboxes on these topics for components and terminal commands. We also have a longstanding navbox for open-source fonts, so this is hardly unique. Blythwood (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could limit its scope then. We don't need typefaces like Franklin Gothic in the mix. Alakzi (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the better approach is to limit the number of pages it appears on. I've created a similar navbox for Mac OS X typefaces (hence my support for keeping this one) and I took the view that it should appear on the pages of fonts best known for being included on OS X, but not others on which including it might just be a distraction (Eurostile, say, or Franklin Gothic). But the navbox is well organised and more information-dense than the list article. They serve different purposes and deleting it would not make Wikipedia a better place. I think someone wondering what the fonts on Windows are and where they came from could find a complete list on the navbox useful starting from (say) the Arial article, and I see encouraging article discovery as helpful. Blythwood (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, better covered by the list article. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think novice readers find it harder to use list and category sections than navboxes. The navbox is also considerably better organised than either, since the list article is not very effectively sortable by script. Blythwood (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, but limit scope, clarify purpose. Alakzi and Blythwood both make good points. Comprehensive lists of typefaces shipped with an OS should be a list article. Cluttering a large number of typeface articles with this infobox is not helpful. But if the infobox is limited in scope to only those typefaces commissioned specifically for the OS (e.g. Apple's city-named fonts for the original Mac; Microsoft's C-named fonts for ClearType showcase), I believe that makes the infobox a useful and relevant. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:54, 21 September 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Creator Benzband hasn't expressed a desire for it, but this can be userfied on request to their userspace. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2 cents (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless. We are not really going to use that "my two cents" term in discussions, so I don't think this serves much purpose. TL22 (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Like the nut one could not be used without the words to avoid confusing people, as well as “my 2¢” being the sort of unsure / non-commital language we avoid here anyway.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The phrase "my two cents" is something I often see around here. To claim we avoid unsure/non-commital language... here is absurd. This template would not detract from any argument presented alongside it and looking at the transclusion count we see it is used from time to time. As a second choice, userfy to the space of the creator, who is still active. No reason to delete something in Template: space when it would be acceptable in user space. BethNaught (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• comment userfying is a bit redundant. The creator or any other editor could get it undeleted and userfied on request. If no-one actually wants it it will just end up cluttering a user space and coming up for deletion as a stale draft months from now. Plus so simple a template would be easy to recreate.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would use the term, I never even knew this existed. I find it a bit humorous as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Personally I use "my 2¢" (or simply "my 2c" if I'm really lazy!) and I see others mostly use 2¢ so I feel this is pretty much redudant to that anyway, I never knew the template existed and I'd image neither did anyone else. –Davey2010^Talk 05:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Everyone seems to be focusing on whether editors will use the term, but that's a red herring. The question here is whether editors will use the picture representing the term, and the answer is a strong no. This is perfectly acceptable in user space if the creator cares to use it, though. ~ Rob^Talk 06:09, 28 September 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Alaska selected picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per the precedent set for other "Portal selected" templates, I am nominating this for deletion as an unused relic template. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Nut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless. Its not like we are really going to put nutshell sumaries for everything. And even if one were to put a nutshell summary in their comments, it would be something more like "bla bla bla bla bla. In a nutshell summary, I think X is incorrect", no need to use a single nut for it. TL22 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Can’t see how this can be used without text such as 'in a nutshell' in which case it is redundant and distracting.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment at 2 cents above. BethNaught (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or userfy. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only used in around 33 pages (all the other uses are in the documentation of other templates) and I can't really see how this would be used without text like 'this entire page in a nutshell', so it's rather pointless and would be just as easy to type in text at the end of messages saying "Tl;dr: bla bla bla". It would also be rather easy to clean up before deletion. Userfycation is a possibility. --189.25.194.113 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as to be extremely blunt - Utter useless crap. –Davey2010^Talk 05:10, 26 September 2015 (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).