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. Reasonable nom, no opposition. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 08:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:2019 Central American Cricket Championship ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 ACC Western Region T20 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 Spain Triangular T20I Series ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:2019 Kwibuka Women's T20 Tournament ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates have been merged into the main article of their respective tournaments. HawkAussie ( talk) 23:35, 20 October 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Miami Metrorail platform layout/island ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Consensus over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2019#RfC_about_station_layouts_and_exits was to not include station/platform layouts, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 18:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per that consensus, and also because this is a horrible plan and very difficult to understand. It does not service its purpose as a guide or to illustrate the station well.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If this was already RfC'd, then removing this would probably be non-controverial maintenance.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 21 October 2020 (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 relisted on 2020 October 27. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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

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 relisted on 2020 October 30. (non-admin closure) St3095 ^(?) 16:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Navbox_x-word ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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 merge to Template:User notification preference. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:User notification preference ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 34 uses
• Template:Notification preferences ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - 18 uses

Archaic, non-standard, and redundant now that we have the ability to ping. A good proportion of the few uses are by editors who are no longer active. Subst: and delete, or at least merge. [Twinkle wanted me to use MfD for the former, thinking it a userbox, but that's not what it is] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Isn't the point of these to say "I actually prefer this method," thereby making redundant now that we have the ability to ping exactly the wrong argument? A merge makes sense as they appear nearly identical beyond language choices, but "we can ping" isn't a great argument for a template that allows users to say "don't ping me." ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge. We actually need more templates like these ones – templates that are simple, straightforward and unobtrusive. Cordially, History DMZ ^{( talk)+( ping)} 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• "Merge" (pick one, delete the other). Same exact templates. Both templates have a parameter ability to toggle the option. The only difference is a slight word difference which is non-issue. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as obsolete "noise". If kept, then merge.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:22, 21 October 2020 (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. Reasonable nomination, no opposition. WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Template:Infobox Minecraft server ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is an infobox template made for a total of some 5 pages or so (currently unused, intended for Category:Minecraft servers). For those 5 pages, it would contain data that is generally unwarranted per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The template isn't even generalizable as we have ~0 other pages that would be scoped for something like an "Infobox server". That leaves {{ infobox software}}, which I very much doubt would not be able to take sufficiently general parameters if necessary. (I don't think there are any that are necessary that would come from this template.) Izno ( talk) 00:18, 20 October 2020 (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 speedy keep. Disruptive nomination (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

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

As Wikipedia does not "do" stubs, then there is no need for this template as it only encourages the making of a stub page, which is greatly depreciated on Wikipedia. Please take this template up for review on whether it is really neccessary and productive to the overall running of Wikipedia. Thanks! BlackWidowMovie0000Editor ( talk) 20:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am not sure what you mean by As Wikipedia does not "do" stubs, stub articles are not against any guideline. Additionally, the template actually does the opposite of what you are saying, it encourages articles to be expanded out of stubs. Dylsss ( talk) 21:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Dylsss: Wikipedia does not want stub articles, so the template is not needed. If there are no stub articles and Wikipedia will only create articles if there is info in them, then the template isn't needed. Hope that clears it up. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor ( talk) 21:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

BlackWidowMovie0000Editor, which guideline says that stub articles are not wanted? Dylsss ( talk) 22:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Dylsss: There is no guideline against them, I've just seen that users don't like them. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor ( talk) 22:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

BlackWidowMovie0000Editor, that's my point, you would have to gain consensus to change the guideline at WP:STUB before deleting the template. I am not sure anyone specifically likes stubs (but they aren't necessarily bad to create, as long as the topic is notable and the information that's there is verifiable), that's the point of this template, to solicit expansion, and also not liking something is not usually a reasonable rationale. Dylsss ( talk) 22:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

How would I gain consenseus, @ Dylsss:? The talk page? I can probably do that. BlackWidowMovie0000Editor ( talk) 22:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC) reply

LOL. What next, delete {{ citation needed}} because WP doesn't "do" unsourced material?  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 21 October 2020 (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).