The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Iht header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Iht team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Module:Sports table/WL OT. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 00:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Orli Znojmo roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Vienna Capitals roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HK Olimpija roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Steinbach Black Wings 1992 roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HC TWK Innsbruck roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:HC Bolzano roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Graz 99ers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Fehérvár AV19 roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:EC VSV roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:EC Red Bull Salzburg roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:EC KAC roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Dornbirner EC roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Substitute and delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Kontinental Hockey League divisions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Kontinental Hockey League)). –Aidan721 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Boomerang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Boomerang original programming (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's unnecessary to have two templates now, just Boomerang is fine. –MegaSmike46 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Striking my merge vote above. The nominator has been blocked for disruptive editing on television-related pages here. Blocked indefinitely for failing to engage with other editors over concerns about their editing. No need to merge after taking a second look at both templates. Both have different goals in terms of navigation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:LCR color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LCR lines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LCR lines/branches (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LCR stations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:LCR style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/LCR left/LCR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/LCR left/Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/LCR right/LCR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:S-line/LCR right/Line 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/Elizabeth Line Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Straight replacement so no huhu. --AlisonW (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NENAN. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Winners-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Winners-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because I changed my mind. -St3095 ^(?) 17:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cross-country skiing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Triathlon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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:Bibleverse. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Bibleverse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bibleverse-lb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bibleverse-nb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Biblesource (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bibleref2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bibleref2-nb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bibleref2c (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Bibleref2c-nb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Bibleverse, Template:Bibleverse-lb, Template:Bibleverse-nb, Template:Biblesource, Template:Bibleref2, Template:Bibleref2-nb, Template:Bibleref2c and Template:Bibleref2c-nb.
Silly quantity of templates that all provide external links to Bible chapters and verses, but vary ever so slightly on capabilities: one prioritises links to biblegateway.com (unnecessary, seeing as you can already choose translation – there's nothing unique it offers iirc); others create little inline superscript text; some provide wikilinks to the books referenced; and so on.

These templates don't accurately describe their differences in capability in their naming – "ref2" is a holdover from when ((Bibleref)) wasn't a redirect to ((Bibleverse)). Moreover, there's no need for all of these differing capabilities to be separate templates – ((Bibleverse)) is the most descriptive in its name, and the only one I'd say is needed, if all other capabilities were rolled into it.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 17:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merging all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging all, as above. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merging as above and share preference for using ((bibleverse)), but ((bibleverse-nb)) should also be retained as this omits the name of the book, as in the example given in the template article. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BobKilcoyne: are multiple verse ranges not supported in ((bibleverse)) currently? Could they be included in its capabilities?—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 21:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ineffablebookkeeper: not from what I can tell, for example:
    • Both John 1:1–5,3:1–8 and John 1:1–5;3:1–8 using ((bibleverse)) should refer to a few verses in John 1 and then a few in John 3, but actually open up the whole of John 1:1 to John 5:3.
    • John 1:1–5, John 3:1–8 using ((bibleverse)) presents two passages but repeats the word "John"
    • John 1:1–5, 3:1–8 reads John 1:1–5, 3:1–8 - the desired result, using ((bibleverse-nb)) for the second reference
  • I think it is also worth looking at retaining the functionality of ((Bibleverse-lb)), see for example Ezra 2:63, which creates a link to the Book of Ezra as well as a link to the JPS version of Ezra 2:63. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ((Bibleverse-lb)) I'm not so sure about – per toolforge, it's only used in 144 instances. If it were going to be kept as a functionality, I'd suggest someone clever roll it into ((Bibleverse)) as a function of the resulting display instead. ((Bibleverse-nb)) I'd also prefer to be rolled in, but seeing as it has far more transclusions, I think I'd be alright with it staying.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (((ping)) me!) 10:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      Happy to endorse that plan, however, I am not the clever person needed for the job. BobKilcoyne (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Yertis Pavlodar roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template. Substitute and delete. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2022 (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(s) or module(s) 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:Globalize. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Over-coverage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Globalize (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Over-coverage with Template:Globalize.
These seem to say the same thing. Simplifying the choice of templates for such purposes makes life easier for editors and reduces the maintenance overhead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with this merge. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Illuminati42 (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: One is about a specific region being over-represented and another is about a global worldview not being represented enough. They are the same thing. Roostery123 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Agree with above. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Roostery123 as redundancy elimination. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: what will the new template be called, and what should it say? - Manifestation (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Supporting the merge. I think the merged template should prioritize the phrasing used in Globalize, as that wording is much more concise and comprehensible at a glace. I would also propose that the new template ought to have an additional optional parameter. Currently the Globalize template allows one to specify which perspective is being overrepresented, if applicable to the situation. I think it should also have the option to specify the region(s) that are underrepresented, and from which more perspectives are desired. silviaASH (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 20:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with all this too. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I like this idea, it helps to alleviate the current vagueness of current templates. Roostery123 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As said above, they essentially say the same thing. -- Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)}
• Support, any difference is too minimal to be worth having both. Would prefer the prompt in the Globalize one remain rather than the Over-coverage one. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There's a subtle but real difference between the templates here. The ((Globalize)) template is quite clearly for global topics that are unbalanced in not providing broad worldwide coverage of the article subject. However, there are notable article subjects that are almost entirely covered by sources within one nation; using the ((globalize)) template would be inappropriate if the issue with the article was that it provides unbalanced coverage towards one region within the same country, but using the ((over-coverage)) template would make perfect sense. Those in support of the merging ((over-coverage)) into ((globalize)) do not appear to have considered this use-case, but this use case quite clearly shows that the two templates are not identical in scope to one another. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Red-tailed hawk, it's worth considering that ((Over-coverage)) is merely a convoluted neutrality warning and templates such as ((POV)) or ((Unbalanced)) would do fine in cases where ((Globalize)) wouldn't. Aza24 (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As the nominator, I considered your "entirely covered by sources within one nation" use case, which is why this is a proposal to merge the templates, not to delete one of them. Furthermore, ((over-coverage)) is currently used on topics such as Labour economics, Religious intolerance, Stepfamily, Improvised explosive device, Vernacular, Football hooliganism, List of political families, and Suburbanization, none of which are "entirely covered by sources within one nation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I agree with Red-tailed hawk, and see a use for ((over-coverage)) as a broader category, where coverage is skewed, but not geographically. But that would require repurposing it a bit, and if there's not community appetite for that, so be it. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• support they mean the same thing so it doesn't really matter 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both include a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please ((ping)) me in replies) 17:57, 13 October 2022 (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).