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. Izno (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cafeteros Pro squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Jaguares XV squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant squad template. These two sides no longer compete in the competition and hence the templates are no longer required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 27 December 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. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Wikidata Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Wikidata Infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Taxontree (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Biology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Module:Wikidata4Bio (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:VNNoDisplay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be serving as an attractive nuisance, requiring a lot of maintenance effort from various people (i.e User talk:Izno#Module:Wikidata Infobox, Wikipedia talk:Lua/Archive 10#Added to script error category, but not displaying "script error"?, someone else had to create Template:Wikidata Infobox/i18n/getMsg) for very little use. It's used in a bunch of categories, most of which are simply pointless since the category links to the main article which also has its infobox. Furthermore, "placing [infoboxes] at the TOP of a category page is an impediment to navigation, because it appears above the listing of the category's content". All of these can simply be removed. Most of the remaining uses are userspace drafts, where the template is again not serving a useful purpose since if the draft ever gets moved to mainspace it will end up being replaced with a standard infobox by Nikkimaria. There are a few non-problematic uses on base userpages, but that's not enough by itself to warrant this template's troubled existence. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is part of a long-running anti-Wikidata campaign by a select few editors. The Wikidata Infobox is actively maintained on Commons, where it is used over 4 million times. It is stable and ready for use, but there is no consensus to do so widely here. It is useful to keep it as an example template, and to support people who want to use it here. I personally find it useful to use when I'm writing a new article - although it's invaribaly turned into a manual template after I save it (see my first sentence). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the 'impediment to navigation' - this was also a concern in Commons categories. The Infobox displays down the right-hand side (alongside the category content) deliberately to minimise the amount of content at the top of the page, so you get to the category contents quicker. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that this isn't quite working right here, I can't easily spot why, will investigate further. See Commons for how it should display down the side of category pages. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to point out that the !votes focused on the use of categories only aren't really delete votes - those can be resolved by removing the uses from categories, but wouldn't affect uses, e.g., in user space, while deleting the template would. This conversation also seems to be getting very toxic, particularly by the usual anti-Wikidata editors, so I don't plan to participate in it further. Mike Peel (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gee, who would have thought that a discussion where the first comment starts with "This is part of a long-running anti-Wikidata campaign by a select few editors. " could turn toxic? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway, just to reaffirm that my !vote is to delete it from all namespaces. Fram (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • The discussion was heading that way from the nomination for deletion, not from my comment. (Just commenting to clarify, I'll go back to not participating / never responding to you again now.) Mike Peel (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • The nomination was about the templates and infoboxes, their uses and the maintenance they require. Your reply immediately was an ad hominem attack. Fram (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I imported the Taxonbox Module because it's quite nice. The taxonomy categories are very much improved by it. Mvolz (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:TFD#REASONS, issues such as the display issues you mention should be fixed, rather than deleting the template. Mvolz (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • See c:Category:Hymenoptera for how it should display. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mike Peel. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And note that an editor clearly stated as being opposed to the use of this template has been canvassed in the nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclined to delete. I'm not a fan of the nuisance edits, and we don't fundamentally need this on the pages it's currently been allowed to survive on, since our category pages aren't Commons' category pages. Those infoboxes that need or should have support from Wikidata are only a consensus-throw away with Module:WikidataIB and/or judicious use of Template:Authority control or another template in that class. Izno (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. All usages on the category pages should be removed regardless of deletion as categories should not use infobox or navbox templates. They bloat the page making finding the actual links harder. User pages which use Template:Wikidata Infobox for personal use, should be replaced with Template:Infobox Wikipedia user. Gonnym (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is there a discussion showing why a navbox would be helpful on a category page? Johnuniq (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as far as I know. But the navigation upwards of taxonomic categories is otherwise a mess doing so the traditional way. I uploaded it after getting stuck in a weird category loop. At any rate, I don't see anyone has come up with a valid reason to delete the template as per WP:TFD#REASONS. It's premature given it was up for a hot two seconds before getting nominated for deletion, so people haven't had a chance to decide whether it's useful or not. Mvolz (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mvolz I don't recall seeing you in the Wikidata debates, so I'm not sure whether you're up to speed on the current state of things. If you're going to jump in as active combatant unilaterally pushing out a bunch of Wikidata deployments, you should consider deletion tagging to be normal and expected as soon as they are noticed. You should also consider "consensus to delete" the likely outcome. The community has spent years been debating the pros and cons of using Wikidata-on-Wikipedia. Rather than engaging in 2mb of that debate here, let's just say both sides have strong arguments. The current situation is that the general community has been unable to reach consensus on whether Wikidata is even acceptable in infoboxes.^{There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if...} There have also been various RFCs progressively and actively banning Wikidata use elsewhere. If Wikidata is ultimately rejected in infoboxes that pretty well collapses the case for allowing it anywhere. That would likely lead to consensus for a Phab task to entirely strip Wikidata-calls from Wikitext. Alsee (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I highly doubt there will ever be consensus for a Phab task to entirely strip Wikidata-calls from Wikitext. Even I would oppose going that far, as I believe Wikidata has some legitimate uses, such as ((interwiki extra)) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete infoboxes on categories, no matter if they are locally populated or through Wikidata. Categories are navigational, not informational. The barest minimum of info to avoid confusion and to identify the subject of the cat, if necessary, can be added (e.g. the "Football Manager" cat which uses one of the above could do with a hatnote explaining which Football Manager series is used), but e.g. a list of the common names of a genus or species in all other languages is totally out of place on a category. Fram (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The code to display common names other than in English can be removed from the template, without needing to delete the whole template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know the meaning of "e.g."? The template is unnecessary bloat and distraction on a category. Fram (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also note that the infobox uses the short description from Wikidata. This should never be used here, so if the template is not deleted, this functionality should be removed. And if this has been implemented in other templates as well, it should be removed from there as well. Fram (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, we don't need infoboxes in categories, just navigate to the parent article to see the infobox, or use the cattree to see the hierarchy. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason for a navbox on a category page and no reason to add a maintenance burden particularly with an unfinished module. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. These are an impediment to navigating categories per Gonnym and Fram. Too much maintenance burden for questionable benefit. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. More nuisance than benefit. Furthermore the continual rollforwards&rollback of Wikidata has become unacceptably disruptive.

• A miniscule number of Wikidata-activists, a number you can count on one hand, continually and persistently WASTE THEIR TIME on UNILATERAL WIKIDATA DEPLOYMENTS.
• This almost invariably burden the community with a larger number random editors needing to waste their time prove there is consensus against it.
• Once consensus-against the Wikidata deployment is established, the Wikidata-enthusiasts generally walk away imposing the cleanup burden on the general community with the cleanup labor. In some cases the cleanup can and has required literally MONTHS of work.

It is long past time to require an affirmative consensus BEFORE any such deployment, to avoid wasted labor on both sides of a pointless roll forwards-and-back combo. Alsee (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2023 (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. Izno (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Arlington Renegades roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:DC Defenders roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Houston Roughnecks roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Orlando Guardians roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:San Antonio Brahmas roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Seattle Sea Dragons roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:St. Louis BattleHawks roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Vegas Vipers roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template, should be merged with the parent article. The List of current XFL team rosters page is already using WP:LST so no need to keep the roster in a separate template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its common practice to have roster templates for professional football teams, see for example at List of current NFC team rosters, List of current AFC team rosters, List of current USFL team rosters, List of current CFL team rosters, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subst per nomination. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete after substitution, and we should considering doing the same for the other roster list articles. the parent for the roster should be the season article, which can be transcluded into the main team article, and into the roster list article. otherwise, people forget to substitute the roster template at the end of the season, and we get 2023 rosters in the 2022 article (or even more out of date). Frietjes (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2023 (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) 16:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Single cat backlog inner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is apparently a documented difference between this template and Template:Single cat backlog, but 1) that template always wrapped this one and 2) that documented difference never materialized. I expect no one has an issue with the way it displays today (well, maybe paddings and such), so I see no reason to have an "inner" template here.

I've disabled the usual tag given where this will usually display. Izno (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The documentation on these templates is totally wrong as far as I can see - the difference has nothing to do with alignment. I think the reason I created the inner template was as a performance optimization to only have the PAGESINCATEGORY computation be done once. At that time in Wikipedia history, I was doing a lot of tricks like this to get pages to load faster. I have no idea if this optimization is still relevant - I've been disconnected from MediaWiki development for years. — RockMFR 04:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PAGESINCAT is cached these days if it ever wasn't, and having wrappers like this counts double against the WP:PEIS. Izno (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I poked around a bit and it does seem that you are correct about PAGESINCATEGORY being cached since before this was created. Hmm. I'm sure I created this to make Template:CSD/Subcategories load faster. I suggest trying subst'ing it in Template:Single cat backlog, and if the CSD pages still work fine, then I'm fine with this being deleted. — RockMFR 07:13, 31 December 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) 01:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Xpd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Xpd1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Xpd2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Xpd3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. ((Xpd0)) is being deleted, and it is part of this family of templates that work together. There were only two or three transclusions of the whole family, which I have replaced with the much more common ((demo)) and ((demo inline)). These can all be deleted now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Jonesey95, what exactly is the problem with the templates? The alternative, ((demo)), is more flexible, but it's awful to have to type the pair of nowiki tags with each template invocation. For simple cases, ((xpd|template)) is so much easier to use than the bletcherous ((demo|<nowiki>((template))</nowiki>)). What am I missing here? – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The templates do not have any problems, except perhaps for their inscrutable names. Their function is redundant to the more full-featured ((demo)) and (except for a couple of experimental usages that I have replaced) the templates are unused. Those are reasons 2 and 3 at WP:TFD#REASONS. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, yes, I'd definitely support renaming to something more transparent. As for the two TFD reasons, I don't think they fully apply: the template is not completely redundant (#2), while for #3 it needs to have no likelihood of being used. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ((Xpd)) is a useful template for a niche that can't be served by ((demo)), has had some actual use until yesterday, has been around since 2006 (which is 8 years before ((demo)) got created) and exists on about 50 other wikis. All of that points to a number of scenarios where deleting this template may break things or inconvenience editors, so I don't think this should be done unless there's some serious counterbalancing harm from its existence, and none has come up so far. I'm assuming those considerations would apply to the other 3 templates in this family, so barring any exceptional circumstances, they should be kept too. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep xpd, but implement it on top of ((#invoke:DemoTemplate|function)) which is more flexible than the existing xpd0, xpd2, templates but has similar usage. Delete the numbered subtemplates. User:GKFX^talk 14:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any template that needs to show a result can use ((Tlx)) which supports that. For the limited amount of Parser Functions examples, use ((demo)). The fact that this template was created before or used on other wikis is irrelevant. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the template used on other wikis, then it's likely that experienced editors coming from those wikis will try to use it here too. If it's been around for a very long time, then this means 1) there may be experienced users here who will assume its existence, 2) it may have been used in older versions of pages (which will break upon deletion), and – especially when it was created a lot earlier than the templates touted as its replacement – 3) it has some historical value (among other things, potentially for understanding the choices made in the design of those other templates), and 4) its code may have been reused into the newer templates (in which case deletion will violate the copyright policy). – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep templates just because they were used on a page. If that would have been a criteria if not deleting a template, this page would barely have any use. We've already been through this. Other wikis is also irrelevant, as has been discussed many times. Also, we don't need to keep a template for attribution, you can just attribute it in a comment or talk page. Also, simple code is not eligible for copyright. Gonnym (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that you disagree with the importance of the points I made above, and so do some other TfD regulars. This disagreement represents a valid point of view, but it's not community consensus. – Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced by Uanfala's arguments since the English Wikipedia isn't even the source wiki for this template (it originated as m:Template:Xpd). GKFX makes a slightly better case for keeping, but overall the fact that a template has been around since 2006 without anyone using it is strong evidence that this template will continue to serve no useful purpose if it is kept. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no longer needed per above. Any experienced editor from a different wiki would know templates aren't the same across wikis. It is well established in TFD that preserving old page revisions is rarely a valid reason to keep templates. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should be closed as this has gone on for over a month since November and there is a majority consensus to delete these templates. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2023 (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. Izno (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Db-x1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We delete obsolete CSD templates regularly (1, 2, 3, 4). This should be deleted for consistency, yes. But more importantly, this template explicitly calls out a real, living person for his mistakes. Of all the former CSD templates, this one should absolutely be a red link. HouseBlaster^talk 03:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as before. For the record I disagree the "more importantly" is a problem at all; Neelix's record is already irredeemably stained by the existence of X1, and its template does not make that stain any worse. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:56, 27 December 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).