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 with NPASR. It should be noted that the parameters are almost identical, making it a possible wrapper, thereby making everyone happy/less grumpy? Primefac (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox fictional creature (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox fictional creature with Template:Infobox character.
Largely overlapping parameters and similar purposes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging. While I might agree the parameters are similar, a character is not a class of fictional things. It's more or less equivalent to ((infobox person)) (and it's derivatives) vice ((taxobox)) (and derivatives, if any). --Izno (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merging. -- Box99Tube (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Characters are not fictional creatures. Are you saying fictional humans are fictional creatures? I am sure humans are not monsters. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and I forgot to say that fictional creatures are not necessarily characters. Zombies aren't necessarily characters, but specific zombies may be characters (not generic ones!). Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm... And zombies don't really suit this gender, occupation, etc. stuff. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It would be nice if the respondents to this understood how Infoboxes work. It's quite sad. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And it would be even nicer if you made an effort to educate your colleagues about their supposed ignorance instead of standing in the corner going "Tsk, tsk." BMK (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  @Secondarywaltz: Please do not comment if you have nothing of worth to say. Your post is uncivil and unreqired. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. The arguments here are backwards, in that many of the "fictional creatures" using the Infobox are "characters". There seems to be a complete lack of understanding how general infoboxes, using the same selection of parameters, can be tweaked to cover different but related things. It has nothing to do with the article content or the differences between the subjects. The discussion here should be about how the similarities allow the same infobox to be used. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Good explanation and valid justification for merging these infoboxes, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If you were to review the use of T:Infobox fictional creature, you would find that these are not being employed for "characters" (as in, singular entities we identify as driving the plot of works of fiction) but instead broader groups of entities. These two infoboxes shouldn't be the same or similar, and the fact they are seems to indicate that the one we're discussing needs further specialization, not less. The parameters applicable to a group of things differ strongly from those of singular things. --Izno (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - a fictional character and fictional creature are not the same and this would be a useless waste of time to merge them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Despite two sharing the word "fictional", there is no relationship between these two phrases, one of which describes something deliberately intended to be fictional, and the other of which describes something often said (or desired) to be real, but which is, in fact, not. BMK (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Oppose These are two different things so this merge would not be beneficial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As per the already-existing above reasons. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is often really baffling to see how Wikipedia sometimes forgets the distinction between syntax and semantics. While both infobox has similar parameters, they indeed represent very different things. And as semantics are very important, those infobox should be different from one another. --nafSadh did say 16:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per User:AlexTheWhovian Secondarywaltz above. Infobox character has nearly the same paramaters as Infobox fictional creature. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:AlexTheWhovian? Lad, I opposed it, I didn't support it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, corrected now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - waste of time to merge two functional templates.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – They serve two different purposes. Fictional creature is closer to fictional race. Also the way the proposal was written, it is tagging infobox character to be merged into infobox fictional creature. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Which on that point, it might be better to merge/delete uses of ((infobox fictional creature)) where used as as referring to a race in favor of ((infobox fictional race))... which leaves me wondering if the remaining uses could plausibly use ((infobox fictional character)). --Izno (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Importance-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The text that this template is next to should be completely removed along with the template, so it should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - ((Importance-inline)) is the inline version of ((Importance-section)) and has a generally similar justification. Another option is to redirect Importance-inline to ((Relevance-inline)) instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Scratch the last sentence. Importance-inline and Relevance-inline templates cover different issues as explained by User:AngusWOOF below. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Apart from my general feeling that maintenance templates are fine the way they are, I didn't understand what GeoffreyT2000 tried to explain is the reason he proposes this template for deletion. Please explain again. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fnlayson; and per Debresser, no proper rationale provided. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per importance-section: "On the other hand, sections in an article that is about a clearly notable subject should themselves be of encyclopedic merit and both relevant to the topic of the article and non-trivial (i.e. "important" in the context)." Importance-inline covers the second, "non-trivial" aspect whereas relevance-inline covers the first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Failed nominator rationale.--Zoupan 09:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Unclear nomination, therefore snowball. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - per Mikeblas, plus my opinion importance of the template itself. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I agree with the above, it sounds like the nominator misunderstood something here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned Navbox (except for the main article) with no valid links for navigation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not about CATA -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one page uses it. This navbox has no viable navigation links. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Asian mosques (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1. Hardly used and where it IS used, it is redundant to the much less "invasive" and easier navigable ((List of mosques)) navbox.
2. The "Architecture" section is covered in the ((Islamic art)) navbox.
3. "Mosques in the World" covers more than just Asian mosques.
4. The listed architectural styles are not exclusive to mosques.
5. The links in "other" seem rather random.

- HyperGaruda (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, better to just use ((List of mosques)) or ((Asia topic|List of mosques in)). Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - personally I think it's more useful to have a clean vertical column rather than a clunky horizontal stack of multiple other templates. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clunky vertical stack of sidebars and infoboxes is even worse, e.g. Kubrawiya. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Frietjes (specifically the suggested replacement ((List of mosques))). Also, its use is probably going to predominantly be on list pages, which causes an uncomfortable scrunching of the tables seen on a number of these lists with the inclusion of the sidebar. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2016 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Former US Reps by age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not really sure what the eventual goal of this template is, as I can see no articles that were created (I'm also not clicking on 226 links to confirm this), and there appears to be nothing in the way of progress towards doing so in the almost eight months since it was created. Maybe the creator can chime in and let me know what they want to do if they are still interested, but this might be better off in their userspace at this time, just because it seems to not really be doing anything in the mainspace. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Transcluded to only one page, no other bluelinks at all. Creator has been completely inactive for eight months, so the chance of a response here is small - as is the chance of development. I suspect that prior to this TFD being raised, I was the only active person aware of the navbox in question. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  And that one is my doing, as I added it back in when I reverted an unexplained removal by an IP, so it never has been used beyond that page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  While I think about it, this navbox goes against WP:REDNOT because that says "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template." --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Navbox boxes are for navigation. What is there to navigate between when there are no links?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WilliamJE. Completely useless navbox without links and it doesn't look like the creator is going to fix it any time soon, seeing that his/her last edit was in April 2015. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The navbox is clearly useless as an aid to navigation when it include 100% red links, but even if all included links were to existing articles, I would seriously question the notability and validity of multiple lists for members of the U.S. House of Representatives cataloged by birth year and age. These types of templates and articles are of seriously questionable value, and the knowledge included of a trivial character. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2016 (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).