Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion.

Template:Familytree and related pages Edit

Why should they be deleted?

I've not checked what any of them were like at their best, and I note that several people have been working on them. I wonder whether those editors have checked w:c:Familypedia for good versions of similar templates. Users of numerous other Wikia communities could use such templates, and the Templates Wikia is the best place to have copies of the best versions.

Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:06, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

It is because I'm being too stubborn and not admitting that no one cares about a page's history except to revert an edit, thus causing me to want to delete the existing page's history since those are mostly blank pages and move User:Yoshord/Familytree there instead. --Yoshord 18:44, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well, couldn't you just blank the page and copy your version over? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:45, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
That's part of the "stubborn" part... I'll do it. --Yoshord 03:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents: Father Time/Apartnership TV Episode April 20, 2001 TV-Y7 (Credits) Edit

This page is obviously a spam page.

Live Long And Prosper. 🖖 Commodore LM (Write To Me!) 🖖 09:41, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

I removed the link for the heading since the page was deleted. Lady Aleena (talk) 06:51, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

TD, TH, TR Edit

Wikipedia elected to delete this template and its friends. Why do we preserve it? Who would use it? What is the point? Henstepl (talk) 13:32, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Yes check Done Thanks, User:Lady Aleena, for taking care of this. Henstepl (talk) 22:18, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

Template Modular infobox deletion dispute Edit

This conversation has been copied in its entirety from the talk page of Template:Modular Infobox to preserve the discussion. Any further discussions about this will continue here! Lady Aleena (talk) 10:35, January 7, 2018 (UTC)

This template should not be deleted. Many users want a template just like it. And they will find one to use, which will probably be an abomination.

I'm not sure if User:Lady Aleena knows that when SPW's Infobox was first created, it used to be modular just like this one. That doesn't mean it should have been, but it means that the very template was copied to many thousands of wikis.

The very (awkward) syntax I had replicated from this exact, old template - but alas, in intervening days, it has been deleted from SPW, so nothing to compare to. Many thousands of users on many thousands of wikis are calling {{infobox|Row 1 info|Row 1 title|...}} precisely as was on that old SPW, and precisely as will work with this template, and if they can't find a template that works with that from us, rest assured they will find it somewhere.

And it won't be Portable. Note that "portability" has nothing to say about how modular a template is Henstepl (talk) 08:59, November 15, 2017 (UTC)

The use of infobox has been deprecated, it is not included on Fandom starter pages anymore. So, newer users creating infoboxes will have no choice but to use InfoboxBuilder. So this template and all those like it should be removed from this wiki as well. Lady Aleena (talk) 10:43, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
How did we end up making the same discussion twice, independently, within five minutes of one another? That's really weird. I totally didn't know this message was here when I posted at Template talk:Infobox. That I posted there is indicative of my belief that that location is the ideal one for this template.
Wouldn't this wiki be pretty sad if the criteria for inclusion of a template were exactly whether it existed on Fandom Starter Pages? Do you have a solution for users like me who like to have silly social single-use infoboxes on their profiles? Henstepl (talk) 11:01, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
There is always Infobox user with several juicy fields I've gleaned from infobox use on user pages. Lady Aleena (talk) 11:23, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
I see you added my favorite-template field. That's great, but you can't possibly hope to cover all possible desired fields. If I added a modular field, as I could do, would that be a bad edit? If I added two, or three? How many does it take?
And what exactly are you afraid of? If you fear that users will use it in the article namespace, sure, I agree that's not ideal, so we can add a namespace check and scold/redirect them if they try to do so. Henstepl (talk) 11:52, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Adding several custom fields to infobox user is a great idea! I will do that now, but give me a little bit. That will be a bit of typing to update the template and the /doc. Lady Aleena (talk) 12:12, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
There you go! 10 custom fields in infobox user. Can I get rid of this template now? Lady Aleena (talk) 12:29, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's appreciated, but I didn't mean it to imply I would endorse a blank space where our Template:Infobox currently is. I ask again, what are you afraid of? I've asked Fandyllic if he has any input, or the usual neutral stance. It will be good to have a tiebreaker. Henstepl (talk) 12:44, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Infoboxes can help guide people through the process of setting up an infobox. These general purpose templates should not be used by new users anymore. Lady Aleena (talk) 12:56, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
A) "Modular infobox" seems like the wrong term for this infobox. It isn't really modular like most of the pre-portable meta infobox templates were. It really is a just a generic portable infobox (and a very basic an limited one at that).
B) In many ways this would be for new infobox template users as it is too limited for most intermediate and advanced users. 10 rows really isn't that much.
C) Infobox user doesn't really fulfill the same needs that this template would.
D) What's the deal with Template:Infobox not having a deletion request, but this one does? I always thought having a template just called "Infobox" was stupid from the start. Maybe I'll have to put the tag back on that one if we find a better name for this one which I suppose is now basically the same.
E) I support the drive to use portable infoboxes when they serve the needs of the wiki community better, but I don't support them in all cases. Fandom has caused a lot of damage with admins in many communities by forcing portable infoboxes down their throats. I would never have done that.
F) I'm an inclusionist and Lady Aleena appears to be an exclusionist, so I suspect we will be at odds for a long time.
Is that enough response? If this is the tiebreaker, this template should stay. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4 Jan 2018 4:17 PM Pacific

As a side concern: where do we put it? I'm willing to concede it's poorly located. I would advocate Template:Infobox generic, but I would prefer we just moved it to Template:Infobox. I designed this template to emulate the exact syntax used by the original infobox that was put on many, many wikis from SPW. That has now been deleted, but it was at Template:Infobox. I would be open to a Template:Infobox >Template:Infobox classic move perhaps rather than any deletion: I don't see any reason to restrict it to one format or the other. No reason not to be primarily portable, though. Henstepl (talk) 11:31, January 5, 2018 (UTC)

Fandyllic you have brought up god points. So here are my opinions. Henstepl, C and D will cover your concerns.
A) I agree that "Module infobox" is a misnomer.
B) New users should be encouraged to learn how to write portable infoboxes and not get into the bad habit of depending on generic boxes like Infobox or Modular Infobox.
C and D) Infobox user is what I think I will use to clear out the use of Infobox on user pages. There is only two other uses of infobox that are marked for deletion, but I am giving users time (at least 7 days) to see them. Once all transclusions of Infobox are cleared, then decisions can be made on the fate of this template and its ancient sibling.
E) I am going with the flow of what Fandom wants. The table-style infobox is horrible on mobile from what I understand. (I do not have a mobile device that can view web pages, so I have not seen it.) So, I will do whatever I can to make templates viewable on as many platforms as possible (though they have not really covered print yet).
F) I am more of a de-clutterist. If you have seen the new voting templates category, I have included more templates that are part of a larger group. However, templates like Modular Infobox and Infobox are now considered a bit of clutter (at least by me). I will add new well-formed templates as I find them. Also, if you need to classify my views on this by editing philosophy, I am an eventualist. (Eventually someone might come along and delete all table-style infoboxes as a way of getting wikis to do what staff wants, so why not do it now when we can do it gracefully.)
So, in closing, I will remove the delete template from Modular Infobox until we can reach some form of decision. The one thing that should be stressed is that new transclusions of the table-style infobox are discouraged. So whether or not it is kept, that infobox should not be used anywhere on this wiki. Single-use infoboxes should also be discouraged. I have never seen a reason for a single use infobox. Even my personal user infobox on Wikipedia got transclusions from other users. I could even bring some of those fields over to this wiki's Infobox user. Lady Aleena (talk) 14:13, January 5, 2018 (UTC)
I agree that new transclusions of the table infobox should be discouraged. My current advocacy is for a move Infobox > Infobox Classic followed by Infobox modular > Infobox.
You are not able to clean up infobox calls on every conceivable wiki, only particularly on this one. I feel like there must be something at Template:Infobox, even if it does relentlessly encourage the user to look elsewhere. Henstepl (talk) 11:53, January 7, 2018 (UTC)

Deciding what to do with generic infoboxen Edit

I think we need to come to a decision about what to do with Template:Infobox, Template:Infobox2, and Template:Modular infobox. There are three options I can see so far: keep as is, delete them, or rearrange them. What do you think should happen?

I am for deleting them to encourage the use of the proper infoboxen in the proper places. Keeping them would be a crutch for users. If they are gone, then users might just try to create infoboxen that others can use. For example, I have no problem with a user adding fields to infobox user so that the user can have more named fields in the box. There is also Template:infobox test where users can test their latest infobox creation, though I could move it to infobox sandbox so the users will understand that is the template to use for their latest test creation. I do not think keeping general purpose infoboxen is a helpful for any wiki. Lady Aleena (talk) 10:17, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
Personal thoughts: I do think it would make sense to at least move Template:Infobox off that URL - it's not a good style to copy. The concept of Template:Modular_infobox makes sense for some niche circumstances, like a custom user page infoboxes, but it's not something I would recommend any wikis make wider use of - per-article templates are kinda silly, and transcluding it into other templates can be pointless complexity. -- Kirkburn (talk) @fandom 17:47, January 10, 2018 (UTC)
I think, for now, we should:
"...per-article templates are kinda silly, and transcluding it into other templates can be pointless complexity." - Kirkburn
I completely agree with this. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 10 Jan 2018 11:24 AM Pacific
How about merging the functions of Infobox2 into Infobox so Infobox2 can also be deleted? Lady Aleena (talk) 01:00, January 12, 2018 (UTC)
I would say delete Infobox2 outright; there isn't need for more than one classic per-page infobox. Note that I don't say per-article, because Modular Infobox does NOT work in the article namespace; I made it so!
I have changed the documentation of Modular infobox to be different from default documentation. This documentation can be changed further if it helps. Henstepl (talk) 01:15, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
Henstepl, I am sorry, but there should never be a reason for a generic portable infobox. If a wiki needs a new infobox, the writer would just fire up the infobox builder and create a new infobox. Single use templates should not exist either. So, just use Template:Infobox user on your user page. No other page on this wiki or any other wiki will ever need a generic portable infobox. If they do, something is terribly wrong. LA (T) @ 08:41, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
"there should never be a reason for a generic portable infobox." Does the word "portable" hold any bearing? If I take out that word, do you still no longer believe there shouldn't be "a generic infobox"? If so, why is that distinction relevant? People will demand a Template:Infobox, and the generic one I have made is the best. Henstepl (talk) 13:51, January 14, 2018 (UTC)
A) I don't think we should have a Template:Infobox on this wiki, at least with that name, that's why I don't want to merge anything into it.
B) As I'm not really sold on portable infoboxes as the best solution for every infobox situation and I have seen generic infoboxes put to good use for admins who don't want to make a jillion infoboxes for everything, I completely disagree with not ever needing to have a generic infobox. As far as I know you can't make a generic portable infobox, so I can't comment on whether it is needed or not
-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 14 Jan 2018 9:35 AM Pacific
I am pretty sure that it used to be impossible, but somewhere along the line, it was made possible. Isn't that generic and portable?
If Template:Infobox is deleted, you should at least include a clickable link to Template:Infobox user in the deletion description. But I still say that name should be occupied on this wiki. Henstepl (talk) 20:49, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

I personally feel that this unresolved discussion is worthy of a sitewide notice. Henstepl (talk) 20:13, January 30, 2018 (UTC)