Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 27

August 27

Template:Schefflera

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) 17:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

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

There are ~540 species in the genus Schefflera,[1] enough that there is even a separate article listing them rather than posting them all on the genus page: List of Schefflera species. Trying to cram them all into a template doesn't seem helpful. There aren't any other kinds of articles about Schefflera than species articles, unlike, say, Template:Fragaria or Template:Pyrus which have numerous links to cultivars, uses, and other topics that might be interesting to the reader and help merit a standalone template. I think it's a bad precedent to set to say that every species article should also have a template that simply lists all the other species in the genus. It also increases editors' workload for taxonomic maintenance. — Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hyperik, Is there a possibility for other kinds of articles(other than species articles) may be written in the future about this genus? → Timbaaa_talk 05:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. At least one species is a common houseplant (I have one!), and maybe there are some particularly popular cultivars, but that's about it that I can think of. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 21:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

In that case, delete. → Timbaaa_talk 03:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Article templates/Drug, treatment, or device

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. Primefac (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Article templates/Drug, treatment, or device (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be essentially a duplicate of WP:MEDMOS. There's no evidence of use other than it being moved around a fair bit. I think it should be deleted or, if not deleted, then userified. If possible please keep this nomination open for slightly longer than normal as editors that potentially use it may not be active at this venue. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not an exact duplicate but part of an article writing tool.   ManosHacker ^talk 23:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

These aren't technically templates then? I mean, they're templates in the colloquial sense of the word, but not templates as in the technical or Wikipedia usage of the term? All that stuff should probably be moved into the Wikipedia space, probably as a subpage of a WikiProject or somewhere else. In the meantime, I think it makes most sense to move Template:Article templates and all subpages to Wikipedia:Article templates. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As for this particular TfD, I think probably take no action, since this is really a wider question about article templates in the template namespace, as this isn't a duplicate of WP:MEDMOS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. It looks to me like these are templates. One could create a new page and substitute one of these article templates as a starting point for an article. Substitution is indeed a recognized manner of use for templates. --Bsherr (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: per Bsherrr. → Timbaaa_talk 05:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:User 2fa

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 Wrong venue Moved to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User 2fa (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Template:User 2fa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:User 2FA whose page created first in 2016; may be recreated as a redirect to the template that this is a duplicate of after deletion. 154.5.234.189 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom to the other template, which is older and slightly more used. I take it that we don't need two differently formatted userboxen that do the same thing. Also, could someone please move this discussion to WP:MFD (where it's supposed to be)? – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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).

Template:Lang-eml

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 relisted on 2020 September 4. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Lang-eml (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Articles_containing_Emilian-Romagnol-language_text (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

Template:Gija Joseon monarchs

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the template's undeletion. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Template:Gija Joseon monarchs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janghye of Gojoseon, all but three of these kings are entirely fictitious. The list is redundant with List of fictitious kings in Korean genealogies, and fails the guideline that "templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers, such as navigation aids" in WP:TG, as the vast majority of relevant articles have been redirected to the "fictitious monarchs" list and the template thus serves no navigational aid or any benefit to readers. In fact, by providing an entirely fictitious king list as apparent fact, it is actively harmful to readers' understanding of this corner of history. Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. → Timbaaa_talk 02:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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).