Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 December 18



Template:Lang-ku

 * 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 speedy keep. This looks like the continuation of the same Kurdish-related disruption campaign that saw me protect many tens of related articles. It is apparent that not a single established user in this discussion has expressed a preference to see this template deleted. At any case, Trappist the monk's explanation is more than thorough. Note that mass removal of this template from pages will be responded to harshly. El_C 16:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC) This template is confusing: First it is a redirect to Kurdish languages because Kurdish language is also a redirect to Kurdish languages. Therefore the template should be named and linked correctly to Kurdish languages. Second, which of the Kurdish languages is meant here and which script is used? For example Kurds from Iraq and Turkey use different scriptes. Thirdly, according to this source only Gurani and Sulaymani is called Kurdi. The other languages spoken by Kurds have different names. I think in this state it should be deleted. Marcel Schelzer (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Lang-ku
 * meh
 * So that Module:lang doesn't have to keep track of all of the slight variants in article naming, it relies on standardized redirects from &lt;language name> language so there is a redirect from Kurdish language to Kurdish languages.
 * The template name uses an ISO 639-1 code which the ISO 639 custodians have defined to be Kurdish.  The template cannot and should not invent more specifics than that.  At Kurdish languages, the individual language codes associated with ISO 639-2/-3  are:
 * – Sorani which has
 * – Kurmanji which has
 * – Southern Kurdish which has
 * – Laki language does not have but is supported by
 * for Gurani there isn't a template but this code is supported by
 * for languages written in different scripts from that expected by default, the templates have script which takes an ISO 15924 script code.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the explanation above. If the OP is unaware of how these (admittedly confusing) lang-xx templates work, a posting on the template's talk page or at Template talk:Lang would be more appropriate than asking to have this useful template deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Trappist the Monk's explanation. --Semsurî (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, we already have Template:Lang-kmr for Kurmanji, and Template:Lang-ckb for Sorani and Template:Lang-sdh for Southern Kurdish. We do not need more templates for the same languages. Neutrale Person (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This template is transcluded in 809 articles. It is clear that some editors find it useful, perhaps when the specific dialect or language is not known, or when a word is common to multiple Kurdish languages/dialects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think some kind of disruptive campaign is going on. This IP is removing the template from articles. --Semsurî (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as a standard element in the system of lang templates. We need to have such a template for each ISO 639-1 code, and it is not a duplicate of the more specific ISO 639-3 templates as there are cases where it is not possible (or desirable) to pinpoint the exact Kurdish language. – Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep there may or may not be differences between the variants of Kurdish languages; where there aren't one can use this; where there are one can use the ones pointed out by Trappist the monk above. We have similar slew of these for variants of the Greek language and of the Chinese language. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - It seems that there is no unified Kurdish language and that there is no unified Kurdish script. „A few years ago, a heated debate over creating a unified written Kurdish language became politicized and ended up producing a “language war““.  Sorani uses an Arabic-based alphabet, Kurmanji uses a Latin-based alphabet. So how we can have a "Kurdish" Template without a unified Kurdish script? Portbase (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per NPOV, this template violates the NPOV. „Linguists disagree about whether Kurdish is a language with many dialects, or whether there are several closely related languages.“ Other sources claim: there is also not a single Kurdish language but a group of languages spoken by Kurds. or „Kurds do not belong to a single ethnic group, nor do they speak a wholly unified language.“ or „Current political activities are nothing more than an attempt to create a common "Kurdish" language for the overall group.“ It’s violation of the NPOV to push a single Kurdish language here with this template. Then some readers who are not familiar with this dispute think that Kurds speak only one language. That’s why the page is called Kurdish languages. 118.154.44.180 (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And I can find linguists who will argue the opposite. Why not be neutral?  --Semsurî (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This template is part of a large dispute and violates the NPOV. See also here WP:TFD Reasons to delete a template 4. "The template violates a policy such as Neutral point of view or Civility and it can't be fixed through normal editing" The problem is it can’t be fixed through normal editing. For this reason, the other templates for Kurmanji, Sorani and so on, are more useful. 118.154.44.180 (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete due to confusion. So if there is simply written "Kurdish" when the template is used and the template refers to Kurdish languages ​​... then we can choose which of the Kurdish languages ​​is meant? This template is misleading and is used for various articles without exact details. The existing templates (,, etc.) are accurate, precise and completely sufficient. But with this misleading template, should you sometimes choose between Kurmanji, or Sorani or Laki? — Futebul (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. redundant. -- 109.88.12.205 (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * keep Ok, so we have a few IPs like 118.154.44.180 (13 edits), 109.88.12.205 (22 edits) and a some others like Marcel Schelzer, (The filer of the discussion, 18 edits), Neutrale Person (110 edits), Portpase (66 edits), Futebal (68 edits) with all together below 500 edits for a delete and on the other side we have sysops Trappist the monk and Carlossuarez46, autoreviewers like Jonesey95 and Uanfala and reviewer Semsuri with hundreds of thousands of edits who are for a keep. To me it seems a clear case here. Keep. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete because not helpful. In addition, you do not decide based on the number of user edits what is allowed to remain or not. If that were the case, a user with a million edits could influence every discussion in his favor. The TFD discussion is linked in every article where the template is used. That means that many users can see it. 24.127.124.83 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2019 (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:HP calculators

 * 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. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC) No documentation shown. -- Bank Bank Robbery started a robbery (🚨) 09:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * HP calculators
 * Speedy keep. Lack of documentation is not a valid deletion criterion, but I have added documentation to this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creator, I note that the template has been changed a lot since I created it, but it still serves the intended use I had in mind and is useful with that in mind.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep; no valid rationale for deletion. Happy Festivities! //  J 947  (c) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (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:Sydney New Year's Eve

 * 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) 00:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC) The individual shows were deemed not notable at this mass AfD, and were all deleted and turned into redirects to the parent article, Sydney New Year's Eve. Since the individual events are all now redirects to the parent, the navbox is no longer necessary. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sydney New Year's Eve
 * Delete Not required. Nigej (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * delete, no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2019 (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:Black cartoons

 * 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) 00:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Does not meet the criteria at WP:NAVBOX. One giveaway is that there is no main topic article at Black cartoons or a similar title (at least none that I could find). These articles are fine in subcategories of Category:Black cartoons. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Black cartoons
 * Delete: also probably doesn't meet criterion 5 (If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.) and the scope is broad enough that the template would eventually become enormous if properly populated. — MarkH21talk 05:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * delete, better to navigate by Category:Black cartoons as suggested. Frietjes (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2019 (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:Semitic topics

 * 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) 00:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC) The template groups the sub-articles in a manner consistent with 18th and 19th century Biblical terminology for race, which is now obsolete (as sourced at Semitic peoples). The only non-obsolete use of the term is in linguistics, and we already have two relevant navboxes for those (Template:Semitic languages and Template:Modern Semitic languages). I have not notified others as all three of the creator and the other two top editors of the template are blocked editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Semitic topics
 * delete, too diffuse to be useful. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2019 (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).