Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

Template:Expand further

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. In a glance, the number of people in favor of keeping the template (7) is bigger than those in favor of deletion (5). However, deeper examination shows that there are little to no valid discussions and there is no parity (let alone consensus) amongst the sound discussions. Some use a similar reason to suggest an opposite verdict, some employ a fallacy and some ridicule other participants. The discussion seems to have reached a standstill, therefore, relisting would be out of question. (WP:NAC) Fleet Command (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand further (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I was really glad to see that Template:Expand was finally retired. The expand further should've been merged to it long time ago (and subsequently share its fate), but it is not used much, and seems to have not drawn much attention. Few months back such a merger was suggested as the outcome of a TFD. Let's wrap this up, delete or retire, and move on. On a final note, do note that Template:Incomplete is considered for merger to expand further, so... let's retire it as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Incomplete is no longer being considered for merger into Template:Expand further, but so far everyone wants it to go away. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - What's the difference between delete and retire? Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barely used, shares all the same problems as Expand. Name is also misleading, as it sounds like a clone of "expand", not a template used to suggest sources. Furthermore, it's pretty sloppy and lazy to just dump a bunch of sources in an article and say "here, use these". What if no one else on the wiki has access to those books, or through t

hat paywall? Also, I see absolutely zero talk-page suggestions tied to this template, further suggesting that it's just not being used much. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to {{Expand}} Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Very funny. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea! LOL :D Jessemv (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: actually what bothers it?.Justice007 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have the relationship backwards. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL agreed :D Jessemv (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some information to help inform the discussion:

Message templates used for expansion (as of 04:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
Template	Transclusion count	Usage (per doc)	Categories added (per /doc)
Template:Biblio	40	citations	Category:Articles lacking ISBNs
Template:Complete	83	completed lists	none
Template:Empty section	43289	empty sections	Category:Articles to be expanded
Template:Expand	(no longer used)
Template:Expand further	667	"Further reading" section	Category:Articles to be expanded with sources Category:Articles to be expanded
Template:Expand section	19745	in sections, optional description param.	Category:All articles to be expanded Category:Articles to be expanded
Template:Expand list	12212	immediately before any incomplete list	Category:Incomplete lists
Template:Incomplete	1699	anything and everything	Category:Articles to be expanded
Template:Incomplete list	313	(redirected to Template:Expand list)
Template:Incomplete section	8	(redirected to Template:Expand list)
Template:Incomplete table	(no longer used)
Template:ISBN	359	missing ISBN's in cites	Category:Articles lacking ISBNs
Template:Lacking overview	5	articles that lack a general overview of topic	Category:Wikipedia articles needing context Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup
Template:Missing	10	refers to Template:Expand, some parameter(s) don't work	none
Template:Missing information	256	suggest additions on talk page	Category:Accuracy disputes
Template:Missing information non-contentious	42	suggest specific additions in parameter	Category:Accuracy disputes
plus dozens of subject-specific and media-specific templates, and redirects

Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it weird that {{ISBN}} doesn't invoke the ISBN function of MediaWiki. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird that a non-commercial project like Wikipedia uses publishers' bar codes (ISBN numbers) at all... The "ISBN function of MediaWiki" is unused, unloved, and worthless. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all types of incomplete/missing/expand into one template, and call it {{expand}}. Require a rationale (and a switch for missing/incomplete/expand). 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a template that was deprecated for being obsolete? Yeah, that makes a load of sense. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Expand}} is unused, so it is perfectly suitable for reuse. So it does make sense, since it is a reasonable name for a merged template to be called. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This flag should not exist in mainspace. I have no problem with it being used on Talk Pages. It's a handy rock for drive-by taggers to chuck that damages layouts to no good end. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem very useful and detracts from readers' experience. --He to Hecuba (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This is a massive WP:NPOV violation, since it allows editors to push their preferred sources right in the middle of the article! Whether a source is reliable and what other qualities might or might not recommend it is a matter for the talk page. If kept, talk page only: If this is kept, it should be required to be used on the talk page, like the similar template suggesting that the equivalent article at a foreign Wikipedia should be mined for information (I forget the name of it; you probably know the one I mean). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep and move to talk pages if this is used to give a specific suggested source, as seems to be the case, the proper place is the talk page. A template for that purpose seems very highly appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found it useful [1] when one finds obviously good sources, but doesn't have the time or inclination to expand the Wikipedia article xyrself. Regarding others' concerns above: any template can be abused. Insofar nobody presented evidence that this one is abused in a significant proportion. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, this one seems useful. Some people are really good at finding sources, or perhaps they don't know how to put the information into an article properly. Others are excellent writers, able to take a source and summarize its contents in its own words. While "Expand" and "Expand Further" are very similar in name, at least the latter has specific instructions. As long as a good source has been found, this tag is helpful. Jessemv (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talkpage Suggestions of sources is discussion of how to improve the article, so talkpage. I agree with the other arguments for deletion for articles. In contrast with other templates I do not think that bothering every reader with a few suggestions and possible improvement of the article is worth the intrusion in the reader experience. If the article is of stub-level, that template suffices. If the article is already quite good, than incremental improvement will probably occur even when the suggestions are posted on the talk page. Jhschreurs (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think this link should be renamed to just expand, it is a useful template that gives users a gateway to articles that have not been expanded upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcuteAccusation (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with others that this sort of thing doesn't belong in articles. My second choice would be to move it to the talk page, but I don't see why a special template is needed there (where sources can simply be suggested via an ordinary discussion).
If the template is to be deleted, a bot should first post the suggested sources on the articles' talk pages (accompanied by an explanation of what's occurred). —David Levy 21:05, 6 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Non-free use multi

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free use multi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a low quality alternative to the use of {{non-free image data}} and {{non-free image rationale}}. It results in messy image description pages which contain a lot of duplicate information fields while providing little to no additional advantages. The transclusions of this template are only a handful, so we can safely replace them with the aforementioned two. Fleet Command (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:57, 5 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Neuchâtel Xamax squad

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neuchâtel Xamax squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After many financial crises, the team was excluded from Swiss Super League in January 2012 and declared bankrupt on 26 January 2012. Hence, there is no use to keep this template. Leyo 16:49, 2 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Select college football awards

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mountain West Conference Football Defensive Player of the Year navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mountain West Conference Football Offensive Player of the Year navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mountain West Conference Football Player of the Year navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:SEC Championship Game MVP navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Southeastern Conference 50th Anniversary All-Time Football Team navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Senior Bowl Hall of Fame navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)}

Template:Senior Bowl All-Time Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Florida–Georgia Hall of Fame navbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete all - There is consensus at WP:CFB that these navboxes do nothing more than banner-hang. They're not nationally important, don't contain stand-alone articles, and unnecessarily add to navbox clutter. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per nom and per linked discussion at WT:CFB. cmadler (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{Mountain West Conference Football Player of the Year navbox}} and {{Southeastern Conference 50th Anniversary All-Time Football Team navbox}}. Delete the rest. I consider it very likely that the SEC All-Time team was announced with a press release in 1982. I also think all Conference POYs should have articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: That some of them might turn out to be notable and might someday have articles is no reason to keep clutter like this. While these are little boxes instead of little pictures, a large amount of the anti-cruft rationale at MOS:ICONS is actually quite applicable here. If the conditions TonyTheTiger would like to see do come about, it will be trivially easy to recreate such templates for the ones that are actually warranted. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per nom, conversation at WT:CFB and WP:NAVBOX. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I will again call attention to the two-step analysis required here: (1) are the underlying awards that are the subject of these navboxes notable per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS guidelines; and (2) do the navboxes satisfy the guidelines of WP:NAVBOX? Notability requires significant, recurring media coverage, separate and apart from routine game coverage or passing mention elsewhere. One or more significant stand-alone articles or other publications are required, independent of the subject—no yearbooks, media guides or other school or conference publications are sufficient to establish notability because they are not independent of the subject. Among other things, the navbox guidelines require a supporting Wikipedia article. There may be other conference-level award navboxes that pass muster, but these particular award navboxes fail both steps of the analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Classic banner-hanging.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just added {{Florida–Georgia Hall of Fame navbox}} to this list at the suggestion of Dirtlawyer. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Template:Mountain West Conference Football Defensive Player of the Year navbox and Template:Mountain West Conference Football Offensive Player of the Year navbox but Delete the rest. I'd say those awards are definitely notable enough for a template, and it would be nice if all conferences had them. The rest aren't really necessary.--Yankees10 00:25, 8 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:UCS characters

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UCS characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template tries to describe UCS (or Unicode) characters along a single line of grouping & subgrouping: Script-Symbol-Other. But the "character type", which has a descriptive not defined meaning btw, is used along multiple lines in Unicode. Script-Symbol is one, but then should have a "None of these" added for controls and formatting characters. Another grouping could be per visible/not visible, or General Category, or graphic/format/control, or Is Combining Y/N, or Is Compatibility Y/N, etcetera. These are all separate, independent groupings. For example, a Numerical character can be in a Script or not. Example 2: Combining characters are not confined to scripts, they can work with Symbols just as well. The (younger) {{Unicode navigation}} covers these multiple dimensions better.
Apart from this, the current template is incorrect and incomplete. Which in itself is not an argument for deletion, but when we would improve it the problems we encounter illustrate my point. DePiep (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm just wondering, DePiep, if you followed all the links, because the "Numerals" link covers both script=common and script-specific numerals. I think you have misconstrued the purpose of this template, and then judged it to be deficient based on a standard that is not appropriate. I don't think this was ever designed as a comprehensive listing of every character type, merely as a quick guide to the major broad topics - a job which it does quite exceptionally. Yes, diacritics technically can be used on symbols, but that is really a detail of Unicode architecture, rather than an immutable identity. As a point of fact, when used with symbols, they are almost always simply refered to by the general combining mark. Add in the fact that if you follow the link from the title, you get a fairly comprehensive article on most of the content you believe is missing, and I have to wonder if maybe you shouldn't just work on a new template that has the information you want. I personally believe that {{Unicode navigation}} is wholly inappropriate to the uses to which {{UCS characters}} is put in the articles in which it was transcluded. This template is a very good, general overview of the topic which it purports to cover, and is used appropriately and consistently in the articles in which it is transcluded. Perfect example of what a template can be. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 22:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to start I need to skip the snarky opening tone you use. Then I can get to the content. If there were issues with the linked articles, then I would be overthere not? Here I talk about the template.

First, this template lists some of the topics from its title promise, reduced to a dozen (CJK is mentioned, but not the Latin alphabet. Decomposition is mentioned, but not directionality). This selection is arbitrarily. If you claim these are the major broad topics, how do you know Decomposition is more important than say Control characters? Phonetic symbols (!) yes, mathematical symbols no? From {{Unicode navigation}}, dozens of topics should be in this template to give a serious representation. Conclusion 1: the list is too short, and so by arbitrarily selection.

Next, about the structure of the template. The list takes a simplified single grouping of topics: Scripts-Symbols-Other_topics. As I described above, this grouping is not along a single dimension, so it is unhelpful, we will keep encountering contradictions & illogics. Really, all Currency Symbols are in a Script too. The standard I apply is in the name of the template: UCS (Unicode) Character types -- well, I may expect it to adhere to that. I don't get what standard you refer to, except that it is "an overview of the topic it purports to cover"? That is circular, of course it covers what it covers. Can you expand by what standard it does something "excellent"? The template also does not comply with the first editors documented intention (is it along the lines of General Category?; End users need a link to Decomposition?). Conclusion 2: the template chooses a topic (& title) that cannot be covered this easily.

Three, the template that has the information missing is there already: {{Unicode navigation}}. Conclusion 3: Keeping up this one is a (partial) duplication of a navbox. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was no snark intended, I have absolutely no idea what you are complaining about with the number article, so the only logical conclusion is that you didn't read it. As for my other observations and perceptions, see below. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 12:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the linked articles describe the topic of the template well, as you state, does not imply that the template itself is good. It is even stranger to suggest one must have read a page to understand the template. The snarky thing is that you conclude that I do not understand it because I have not read a certain page, like Numerals in Unicode, that describes the topic so well. Actually, I thank you for this compliment, via [2] and [3]. -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Enough of this). On a constructive pace: I am interested in your noting that such a template is useful for non-technical, global, introductionary, end-user view. That is a different view than the big Unicode navbox shows, I agree. Is it possible to recreate or change this navbox with that viewpoint in mind? Say, the end-user Unicode character experience? The /sandbox is available. (I add, if it would be possible I'd still advocate to merge that into the big navbox, because having two navboxes is undesirable). Maybe the template could be along the line: VISIBLE (Scripts, Symbols, Grouping:scripts, math, phonetic; Functions: combining, pre/composing, direction;) INVISIBLE (formatting, control) OTHER (non-characters). -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still don't get it, but if we really want to start from scratch to replace this guy, what do you think about going with something that is a more "UCS basics" infobox-style template, with some fields for Unicode Gc, Script(s), Block(s), etc. ending with some basic Unicode/UCS topics? It should be usable at the top of an article about a Unicode/UCS topic, or in a Unicode section of a script or other general article. We could also blank the basics section by flag, so that you could put the infobox in multiple places in one article, but only have the full one show at the lead - I'm thinking of doing separate transclusions for each new Gc at Mapping of Unicode characters.

I could probably put this together in a couple of days, but I'd like to announce it at Writing Systems to get some more feedback before rolling it out. Does that sound OK? If so, let's close this guy up and then do a G6 deletion when the replacement is ready. Agree? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 03:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this, for starters? Van Isaac_WS^contribs 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turning it into a full infobox can be good. As long as it overlaps the Unicode navbox (under whichever template name), I think I want to discuss it here. Explained more in the sandbox talkpage.

What I wanted to say is: if there is merit in a simplified global overview (compared with the big navbox), as seen by a non-tech reader, I'd like to use that. So far, template looks like squaring the circle.

Continued proposals & improvements at Template:UCS characters/sandbox and its Talk.

Closing admin: I suggest that while there is progress in the sandbox, closing this should be delayed. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development. This template is now being proposed & developed into an infobox. See Template:UCS characters/sandbox and Template talk:UCS characters. Since my communication with my opponent is not clear enough, I'd like someone else to join in there. I am not yet convinced of the new form it has, but I don't want to throw away a good idea too. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion. The situation is: There has been development by Vanisaac in the /sandbox. The idea was introduced to turn this template into more infobox like. The latest version did not convince me, according to the same objections I made in my nomination here: (still) not a level of systematic completeness and adding that as an infobox, it does not qualify. I did not get an understanding of the perceived merits of this template (say, giving some broad overview of Unicode for the less-savy reader; see above). About the process: Vanisaac also created {{Infobox UCS basic}} for this development (a bit confusingly to me). Of course this template outside of this TfD, but it is a fork and could be up for TfD some time for the same reasons. On it's Talkpage I reproduced (copy-pasted) the /sandbox talk from here (to preserve that). While invitations were made (see above), no other editors got involved. There was no activity in the last ten days.

My conclusion is that the sandbox development does not overcome the main reasons for deletion, mentioned here. I maintain the nomination, and this TfD can be closed. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Can someone summarize the gist of this for the layperson, and without all the invective? I'm pretty geeky but this is really geeky, and mixing geekiness with spite makes it unpalatable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I can respond later, but maybe I am not the one to clarify this. My answer would start with: What do you think when you see & compare these two templates: {{UCS characters}} and {{Unicode navigation}}? (no answer expected, just to illustrate the issue). -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more try by me (though BabelStone below might be a better writer in this). Unicode uses the idea of "character type" in dozens of ways, and not allways such usage is well-defined by Unicode. For example, {{General Category (Unicode)}} alone needs multiple columns to describe for (my words now) "main gc", "main+sub gc", "visibility", "assignment". Each column in itself can rightfully be read as "character type", and this is just for the Unicode General Category. Now when one wants to describe "character property" (as this TfD'ed template does), one cannot pick arbitrarily from all of the columns a property. That would be mixing up character types "visibility=yes" with "assigned=yes, abstract" in a single list. Said diferently: it is mixing up independent character properties. Independent properties cannot be shown in tree-like structures. That is what I meant with "structurally not improvable". -DePiep (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with DePiep on this one. The box is a random collection of Unicode-related links, organized illogically, that is of litle navigational use.

The template is titled "Character types", but few of the links are to articles about particular Unicode character types, and what is a "character type" anyway? Perhaps, most seriously from a wikipedia point of view, this template seems to reflect one editor's own ideas about "character types", and does not reflect the system of character classification defined in the Unicode Standard.
Why does the title "Character types" link to Mapping of Unicode characters which is an article that has nothing to do with Unicode character types?
What on earth have any of the four items under "Scripts" got to do with Script (Unicode)?
"Numerals", "Compatibility characters" and "Control characters" are not "symbols" in Unicode terms.
"Combining character" and "Precomposed character" are the only grouping that does make sense, but they are put under the meaningless heading "Other topics".

The links give such an idiosyncratic and confused view of Unicode that they are not worth the space the template takes. BabelStone (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1)Probably the only criticism that I agree with. If I had made this template, I would have titled it something along the line of "Unicode architecture" or even "UCS basics", and linked to the main Unicode article. I would have then moved character types as the first bullet item along with the "scripts" link - probably giving a bit more descriptive title - and the "symbols" link. Numerals would have been a second-tier bullet under symbols, with Compatibility and Control characters under the "others" section. Again, this is the changes I would make if I were starting from scratch.

2)Actually, the Character types link covers basically every Gc (character General Category) in Unicode/UCS, except those covered by the other links.

3)Another one that is a bit less than ideal. Specifically, Phonetic characters is just the one thing that isn't really touched on in the "scripts" page, and it isn't covered by any of the other pages, so it got tacked in, but it's not really thematically anything more than a curiosity here. On the other hand, Unihan, Punctuation, Diacritics, and symbols are also not really covered in that article, and the additional articles provide good additional information. Basically, "Scripts" gives a brief overview of simple scripts, the links provided are the ones that aren't really covered, or are complex enough to merit a separate link.

4)I don't think anybody was trying to make a technical claim about Numerals, Compatibility, or Control characters being Unicode symbols, but Numerals are almost certainly more symbols than letters, if we had to draw a phylogeny of character types. As I said above, I probably would have put both Compatibility and Control characters in the "others" section.

I think the links provide a good overview of most of the important, non-technical aspects of Unicode/UCS. It is used as a kind of an infobox in the transcluding Unicode articles, or the Unicode section of broader articles, in additon to the navbox at the bottom of the page that was bafflingly suggested as a replacement. Bsaically, it is the beginners' complement to the technical navbox, and I think it has a good deal of value where it is used. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 12:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, the /sandbox is available. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strange selection of articles results in this being a navigationally useless template. Per BabelStone. --He to Hecuba (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StooShe

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StooShe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems premature at this time. As an aside, since I'm not familiar with this group, how is En Vogue a related article? Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too soon, doesn't link enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, it's a bit too soon. --Son (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MTV Movie Award for Best Fight

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTV Movie Award for Best Fight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I really can't imagine that this is being used to navigate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is in line with all the other MTV Movie Awards. werldwayd (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kut U Up

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kut U Up (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template provides very few links; WP:NENAN appears to apply. Gongshow ^Talk 06:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since band is not notable and unlikely to survive prod anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 2 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bear vs. Shark

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bear vs. Shark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only ~~three~~ two articles other than the band's main page; template does not seem necessary. Gongshow ^Talk 06:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One of these articles, the 1653 EP, appears to be a non-notable subject, as I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources for the self-released recording (thus failing to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM). I redirected it to the band's page. Gongshow ^Talk 16:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator - navigates between four articles, with the potential for more (band member bios, related bands etc.) - seems useful. Giant Snowman 09:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hadn't realised that one link was now a redirect; three is a bit low I'd say. Should more become available, we can easily restore/recreate. Giant Snowman 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep I think there are just enought articles to make this template useful for navigation. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs a navbox. The covered articles are all quite suitably cross-linked already, obviating the need for an additional quick navigation template. That is unlikely to change in the short to medium term. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Four puts it one short of WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NENAN is an essay, not policy; another essay, Wikipedia:Navigation templates, states "a handful of links", which I believe this has. Giant Snowman 16:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Navigation templates states that "They should not be too small. A navigation template with fewer than a handful of links can easily be replaced by 'See also' sections." This template has fewer than a handful. WP:NENAN states: "A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the rule of five. Are there presently at least five articles on which your navbox will be used?" For this template, the answer is no. Another essay, WP:A navbox on every page, states that a template which contains only "a very small collection of articles that can be counted on the fingers of one hand" is "not recommended or should absolutely not be created". While these are essays and not policies, all three seem to indicate this template falls short of being necessary, and I can find nothing else to suggest this template is a special case. Indeed, the template's few links (two albums and a redirected EP) are easily navigable from the band's main page, so its value appears to be quite minimal, at least in its current state. Gongshow ^Talk 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four isn't a handful? Giant Snowman 23:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, perhaps not. Wiktionary, for what it's worth, defines a handful as "usually approximately equal to five, the number of fingers on a hand." In any case, it's fair to say that "a handful" and "too small" are rather imprecise phrases. For example, if someone was asked how many children they had and they answered "a handful", I would be very surprised to discover that meant anything other than exactly five. But, as an extreme example, I've often heard that one child can be "a handful". I don't mean to split hairs too much (too late?) - my point, without an explicit policy in place, is to try and find general agreement among all three essays, wherein other suggestions, namely "the rule of five" and "can be counted on the fingers of one hand", are at least less ambiguous. We have a template - untouched since July 2009 - with few links, only two of which (plus the parent page) have individual articles. In my view, that's "too few". Moreover, what links do exist are easily navigable from the band's main page. Gongshow ^Talk 01:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace and remove from articles for now, per the common sense reasoning at WP:NENAN, and per the creator's assurances that more articles are coming. No reason to delete it, per se, when WP:AGF suggests we should take GiantSnowman at his word. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a group that was only together for 4 years. Do you really think there'll be enough standalone information on their individual members? I doubt it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not made "assurances that more articles are coming" - I've said they might. I have no idea if the band members are independently notable or not, I've not had a look at sources. I wouldn't suggest userfication - it should either be kept, or it should be deleted. I'd prefer the former. Giant Snowman 23:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a useful template. I agreed with SMcCandlish's suggestion to userfy until reading GiantSnowman's above clarification / rejection of that outcome. —David Levy 21:11, 6 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Da Gryptions

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Da Gryptions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only a few articles collected; template appears to have very little value. Gongshow ^Talk 06:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NENAN. --Son (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Shower Scene

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as T3 by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Shower Scene (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only link is to the band's article; doesn't appear to be a useful template at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 05:56, 2 February 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.