This template was considered for deletion on 2017 January 9. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
Languages Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template seems really useless. Most of the language articles include a giant Infobox that clearly displays language affiliation right at the top. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This template should include the Uralic languages. 80.186.223.203 ( talk) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this template's placement on articles like Uzbek language and Nogai language, describing modern languages from which attempts to insert "Altaic" into their infoboxes are regularly removed for portraying a controversial minority view as established fact. Especially considering that the immediate subdivisions of Altaic are Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and not their subdivisions, I am removing this template as a start from the articles which are not explicitly mentioned on this template. This means the template will also be left on the Japonic and Korean articles, although their disputed inclusion in an already disputed language family makes this template's inclusion there extra dubious. Quigley ( talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This template is of questionable utility because it is of a hypothetical combination of five groups. The grouping is controversial and not widely accepted. In language templates throughout Wikipedia we all the parenthetical note "(controversial)" following "Altaic". The same should be true here so as not to imply a greater level of acceptance than there is for this label. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2017 January 9. The result of the discussion was "Keep". |
Languages Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template seems really useless. Most of the language articles include a giant Infobox that clearly displays language affiliation right at the top. -- Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This template should include the Uralic languages. 80.186.223.203 ( talk) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this template's placement on articles like Uzbek language and Nogai language, describing modern languages from which attempts to insert "Altaic" into their infoboxes are regularly removed for portraying a controversial minority view as established fact. Especially considering that the immediate subdivisions of Altaic are Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and not their subdivisions, I am removing this template as a start from the articles which are not explicitly mentioned on this template. This means the template will also be left on the Japonic and Korean articles, although their disputed inclusion in an already disputed language family makes this template's inclusion there extra dubious. Quigley ( talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This template is of questionable utility because it is of a hypothetical combination of five groups. The grouping is controversial and not widely accepted. In language templates throughout Wikipedia we all the parenthetical note "(controversial)" following "Altaic". The same should be true here so as not to imply a greater level of acceptance than there is for this label. -- Taivo ( talk) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)