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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox soap opera family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Infobox character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox soap opera family with Template:Infobox character.
Another candidate for WP:INFOCOL. No need for a custom infobox. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per nom. Can readily be merged, and better here to have an easily updatable box than individual per series / show ones. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if it can be fully merged then it should rather be merged with Template:Infobox soap character. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I'll oppose this for now - I'm not sure if a "family" fits in the character infobox. Might be better served with {{Infobox fictional race}} or as a generic {{Infobox fictional family}}. --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter redirects to {{Infobox television family}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - consider also merging Template:Infobox soap character into Template:Infobox character. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now (further to my above comment) because I'm not convinced that it can be fully merged, especially the drop-down family part. I created this template so that each family member would have a mini-infobox within this infobox - see Ferreira family for an example - there are no separate articles or sections where each character could have their own character infobox. If someone can guarantee that it will be fine, then I would change my !vote, but I would only support a merge with Template:Infobox soap character. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 22:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with caveats. I believe this template has more functionality (and is more attractive) than {{Infobox television family}}, but largely redundant. My suggestion is to merge {{Infobox television family}} into {{Infobox soap opera family}}, and then rename it {{Infobox fictional family}}. The functionality of {{Infobox soap opera family/member}} is also useful (as in Ferreira family), and should either be incorporated into the master template somehow, or at least renamed {{Infobox fictional family/member}}. This will definitely NOT work as a merge into {{Infobox character}} based on the usage of this template. — TAnthony^Talk 19:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think merging these templates makes editing easier because, although conceptually related, they are pretty different including titles, parameters and function. I suggest Zackmann08 explores around and maybe creates a {{Fictional family}} to which things can be merged instead? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. But only because I agree with AnemoneProjectors that it ought to be merged into Template:Infobox soap character first. --Bsherr (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Bsherr: I previously suggested merging {{Infobox television family}} into {{Infobox soap opera family}}, and then renaming it {{Infobox fictional family}}. This template has a different use than {{Infobox character}} but has more functionality (and looks better) than {{Infobox television family}}. If Zackmann08 changed the scope of this TfD in that way, would you be in support? Also, what do you think, AnemoneProjectors? Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just want to see that the merge includes the logical precursors. --Bsherr (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think I would support TAnthony's proposal. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 00:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2019 (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).