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 replace/redirect. Replace with ((Infobox American football team)), and redirect to ((Infobox American football team)), but consider making the base template name "American and Canadian football team" (with shortcut redirects) as suggested. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 11:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CFL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox American football team)), save for the one pre-filled parameter label. I've replaced one transclusion to demonstrate. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the CFL is not American football. In addition, the delete notice on the infobox has broken the infobox so it can't be used. - BilCat (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can call it ((Infobox gridiron football team)), if it makes any difference. Alakzi (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alakzi, to the extent template names matter, no one has commonly referred to American football as "gridiron football" for decades, and even then, the term "gridiron" was used most often metaphorically to refer to the field, not the sport. Today, "gridiron football" is a term used almost exclusively outside North America by other English-speaking countries to distinguish American and Canadian football from association football. It's not elegant, but I think "Infobox American-Canadian football team" would probably be the most semantically obvious phrasing. That said, I would be curious to hear what BilCat thinks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • OR we could do a "Canadian football team" redirect for "Template:American football team," and the CFL guys would not have to change a thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Serves me right for using Wikipedia as a source. Alakzi (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @BilCat: Are there any Canadian football-specific or CFL-specific parameters you need which this template currently lacks? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't actually use the infobox regularly, so I don't know. I posted a note at WP:CFL, but no one's posted hear. The redirect would probably be fine if no one objects. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The CFL seems better right now, the new one has no automatic color stripe and the uniforms are too small. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colouring the title is unnecessary; the colours are listed separately and also appear in the logo. The size of the uniforms can be adjusted with |uniformsize=. The default could also be increased. Alakzi (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if we use the AF infobox, it will necessarily need to be renamed to ((Infobox gridiron football team)) to remove bias in naming. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, in the United States, where American football is played, "gridiron football" is an archaic term that is rarely used. "Gridiron" is used far more frequently in Canada, and even more so in other English-speaking countries where they feel compelled to distinguish American and Canadian football from association football/soccer. A neutral and accurate template name might be something like "Template:Infobox American and Canadian football team". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment, I would support redirecting to ((Infobox American football team)) and then, if there are no objections, moving the parent template to "Infobox American and Candian football team" as suggested by Dirtlawyer1. Frietjes (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Frietjes. With your suggestion, the shorter template names can be preserved while we consolidate these nearly identical templates into one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 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). 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English-language soap operas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a suitable topic for a WP:NAVBOX. This is what categories are for. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, since this is the English language Wikipedia, first and foremost, and the topic is in clear accordance with Wikipedia's English language itself, as opposed to this being a non-English language Wikipedia. Should the nominee chose to create a category based exclusively upon this template as a replacement, then, by all means, after such is created, delete. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this meets any of the criteria for a WP:NAVBOX, that's why I've nominated it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorise. Per nom this is not a suitable topic for a navbox, but categorisation of soap operas by language seems reasonable. PC78 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorize and Delete per nom & PC78. Eman235/talk 00:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, better as a category. Frietjes (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This is better covered by categories, not templates. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 20 May 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). 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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:125 greatest hurlers of the GAA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Possible copyvio, conform Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 125 greatest stars of the GAA that had as rationale: List is entirely subjective and thus fails WP:LSC and is almost certainly copyright of the Irish Independent hence failing WP:COPYVIO, see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. The Banner talk 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the closing statement on the article's AFD—subjective inclusion criteria and copyrighted list. Maralia (talk) 17:36, 11 May 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). 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 merge per nom. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rail-interchange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rail color box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:China line into Template:Rail-interchange and Template:Rail color box.
((China line)) has three different display styles, style=box, longbox and fullbox. The box style is used for the same purpose as ((Rail-interchange)), and it could be merged there. The fullbox style is used for the same purpose as ((Rail color box)), and its values could be merged into the ((system lines)) and ((system color)) template system so they could be used with ((Rail color box)). (Alternately, ((China line/box)) could be merged into ((RouteBox)), a more similar template, and ((China line)) be either kept as a helper template for it or have all fullbox values substituted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 11:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Except for one line (CRT-Circle), all longbox style outputs are identical to either box or fullbox outputs (except that box does not use bold formatting while the others do). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Useddenim (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• merge, no need for a different template for each country. Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 10 May 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). 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 merge, accounting for the concerns expressed in the discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 12:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Japan station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox Japan station with Template:Infobox station.
There is no need for a separate infobox for every country. There are only several parameters (second image, address in Japanese (probably not needed), postal code (probably not needed), year of renaming (could be merged with oldname), operator heading for multi-operator stations) that don't have analogues in ((Infobox station)). This template is very similar to ((Infobox China station)), which is pending to be merged into ((Infobox station)) already; a wrapper for ((Infobox China station)) to ((Infobox station)) could feasibly be modified to fit this template. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 10:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as the country specific template is redundant, per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, you cannot dismiss things as probably not needed when they are parameters that are used frequently on a frequently used template. In order to merge this template, a mapping from the old template use to new is needed which will highlight impact on the affected pages. This may then highlight a to change Template:Infobox station to cater for these fields. We also need to bear in mind an eventual move to Wikidata to store this sort of information and the templates used on other wikis e.g. ja:Template:駅情報. Furthermore the use of this template Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes#Rail_transport shows it has substantial use, second after Infobox Station. I'd be nominating something with much smaller use and eat this elephant one part at a time. Alex Sims (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alex Sims: the address in Japanese is unnecessary because the address is already stated in English; if one wants to find the Japanese address one should go to the Japanese Wikipedia. The postcode is often placed in |address= or |borough= in ((Infobox station)) (see Grand Central Terminal, Chicago (CTA Red Line station)), but can be added as a parameter to Infobox station if necessary. (The Japanese Wikipedia's infobox, for comparison, does not state the address in English, and I'm not sure if it has a postcode field.) As for the fact that it has the largest number of transclusions except for ((Infobox station)), the only two others outside the UK which aren't currently in a merge discussion or aren't pending to be merged are ((Infobox SMS station)) and ((Infobox New York City Subway station)), which would be more difficult merges. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 07:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why are UK station templates being treated differently? Even the nominator indicates there are several differences between ((Infobox Japan station)) and ((Infobox station)). If we are going to consolidate, we should consolidate ALL of the station infoboxes. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nihonjoe: To clarify, the UK infoboxes aren't being specifically exempted from merging (just that no one has gotten around to most of them yet, because of their differences to ((Infobox station))). Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 08:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge, no need for a different template for each country. Frietjes (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree that merging into a unified global station infobox template makes sense, but there are a few points that need to be taken care of if Template:Infobox Japan station is to be merged as proposed. As mentioned above, what will happen to the "operator2" field currently used for individual station areas or buildings operated by different operators (such as in Shibuya Station), and can similar functionality be achieved using the Template:Infobox station infobox? Another issue is the fact that some of the fields in Template:Infobox Japan station have long been used to automatically generate categories for the article, namely "Railway stations opened in XXXX" from the "open" field, and "Railway stations in XYZ Prefecture" from the "pref" field. I believe this practice is discouraged, and I have slowly been working through Japanese station articles to add the corresponding categories manually, but with over 5,000 articles using this template, that's a seriously long task. It would be nice if station articles were not just removed from their corresponding categories when the infoboxes are merged/replaced. --DAJF (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DAJF: While I'm not entirely sure exactly what will be merged, the operator header can be added with a couple of extra <div>s and the categories probably won't be removed from ((Infobox Japan station)) (for an example of what might be done, see ((Infobox Paris metro)) which, when eventually substituted, will also substitute ((Paris Metro/municcat))). Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 09:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a wrapper so items unique to ((Infobox Japan station)) can still be used if needed. Stating a person can just go to the Japanese article for some of the information is disingenuous as it assumes the person understands enough Japanese to find the information there. Having some of the Japanese information in the infobox here makes the page far more useful. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nihonjoe: Assuming you're referring to the address in Japanese (the only item in Japanese other than the Japanese name), I guess a case could be made for merging it (|native_address=, |native_address_lang=ja) since in most places where |address= is currently used the local language address is in the Latin alphabet and is not very different from the English address. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use ((re|Jc86035)) to reply to me 04:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not just that, but "operator heading for multi-operator stations" per nom. Either a wrapper needs to be made, or Template:Infobox station needs to be modified to accommodate, or we leave things as they are. It isn't as if the staus quo is broken, just a group of people wanting to make everything generic, and making it harder to make changes in the future if something new needs to be added for Japanese stations. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge as WP:INFOCOL is just an essay and not widely accepted as even a guideline. Therefore, there is no valid reason to do this. The template is not redundant and serves a very specific purpose in a group of like articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((Infobox Japan station)) as redundant to the superior ((Infobox station)). The only parameter I could think of merging is |presentname=, but that could easily be made part of |former= (i.e. "previous name (until year)"). The address in Japanese can go - per WP:IBX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. |operator2= corresponds to |type=. A parameter for each of the country's subdivisions is plain overkill; they should all be collapsed into ((Infobox station))'s |address=. Finally, auto-categorisation is discouraged by WP:TEMPLATECAT. Alakzi (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitution wrapper is in the sandbox and testcases are here. Alakzi (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need someplace to put "(See other stations in xxxx)", which links to the category listing all the stations in that prefecture. That's one reason the prefecture is separate. This is extremely useful for those who can't remember the name of a station but may recognize it if they see it. And why are all the example images for the proposed changes so freakishly large and the other ones so small? They aren't like that in the articles. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not customarily provide category navigation in infoboxes; the category links can be found at the bottom. And why are all the example images ... A bunch of people argued that, unlike any other infobox, the Template:Infobox station default should be 300 pixels - go figure. As for the Japan station ones, I merely copied the examples provided in the documentation. Alakzi (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also note that WP:IBX doesn't even have the word "address" anywhere on the page, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't say anything about not including address for places such as train stations (it does mention not including "the telephone number or street address of the 'best' restaurants" and things like that, but mentions absolutely nothing about giving the address of the location being discussed...in fact, the two examples it uses of the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre in that same paragraph specifically give the address for those landmarks. Therefore, WP:IBX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are irrelevant to your argument. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IBX states that infoboxes should "present key facts"; the address in Japanese is not one such. Point 2 of WP:NOTGUIDE - which is what I'd meant to link to - is "travel guides". The address in Japanese is not of immediate encyclopaedic interest to English Wikipedia; principally, it might interest travellers. Alakzi (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is the location of a station not a key fact? I would argue that it is one of the most relevant facts about the station. How do you find the station without the address? Yes, it might interest travelers, or anyone else trying to find it on a map (not everyone who looks things up on a map is a traveler). Being able to find something on the map is very important if you are trying to find other notable locations nearby. I've written several groups of articles here based on looking up the address on a map, and knowing the address of the particular location I start with is very helpful. Without it, trying to find it can be hit-or-miss since it is not unusual for multiple stations (or other places on a map) to have similar or the same names in Japanese. Just because you don't find value in it doesn't mean other users of the article won't find the information useful and helpful. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The location is a key fact; the full address in Japanese is not. You make a good point about homonyms in romanised Japanese (or was that not it?), so, perhaps, the kanji address should be mentioned; oddly, it is nowhere to be found in prose, even though, per WP:IBX, infoboxes' purpose is to summarise key facts of the article. Alakzi (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, homonyms are a big part of having the full address. As for the address not being in the main body text, that's easily fixed, though there are often things in the infobox not in the text (coordinates being one example). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 24 May 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). No further edits should be made to this section.