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) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Regime (L.A. punk band) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN, just two useful links The Banner _talk 23:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; not enough links to warrant a navbox.  Gongshow ^Talk 16:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page created, for discussion related to the discussion here, but not particularly relevant to the potential outcome.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 00:13, 29 November 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.

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) 00:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFI 100 Movie Quotes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very few of the quotes have articles, so this is nothing more than a duplication of the list AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes. It is a trivial association among the movies in which this template has been transcluded. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is template overkill. I think all the AFI templates should go too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That is one excessive template. Garion96 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have articles for these AFI lists (see AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes) and we have a template to link these lists ((AFI 100 Years... series)) which is sufficient. To actually have templates linking all the films that feature on these lists is unnecessary since the link between these movies is tenuous at best. Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a bit of an eyesore and it's make more sense within it's own respective article. I admire the work that went in to making it, but it's more confusing and hard to read than useful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above comments. In fact, other than the main "AFI 100 Years... series" template, all of them should go, as Lugnuts said. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:35, 2 December 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.

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) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drama Fever (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

multiple unsued templates. Michaela den (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 00:12, 29 November 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.

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 substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comparison of Email Hosting Providers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This table is used in only one article, so at minimum it should be subst'd and deleted. But I'd prefer to see it deleted entirely per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. John of Reading (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Much as I'm not a fan of these product comnparison tables, they're common enough that this one should probably be given a chance in its parent article. Substitution should be fine here; if the table is later deleted as an editorial decision then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with the article, then discuss on article page if it is to be deleted. Frietjes (talk) 00:12, 29 November 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.

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 move Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nicktoons guidelines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Projectify or subst and delete this is a single use template, used in a project guideline, so could either sit in wikiproject space, or be substituted into the editing guideline. It is not a general use template. 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• move to project space. Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 29 November 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.

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Gilmore Girls (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gilmore Girls Episodes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:GilmoreGirls with Template:Gilmore Girls and Template:Gilmore Girls Episodes.
This TV series doesn't need three separate navbox templates, it can be accommodated under one unified one. The other two pagenames should redirect to the unified name. As the original template is named ((GilmoreGirls)) I suppose that would be the destination for merger. 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the idea of a merge, but I'd suggest ((Gilmore Girls)) as a better name. The camel-case isn't really necessary. --BDD (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to ((Gilmore Girls)), as a better name. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 13:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the merge to ((Gilmore Girls)). --J36miles (talk) 01:08, 28 November 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.

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) 01:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coloured dates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

From a bit of research, it doesn't look like anyone else refers to "coloured dates" (or "colored dates") as a concept. This reminds me of the deleted article Chinese numbered policies. Synthesis isn't generally a reason to delete a navbox, but it may be in this case. There are also quite a lot of redlinks to nonexistent days that reduce the template's usefulness. BDD (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too vague, looks like WP:OR The Banner _talk 15:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean WP:OR? --BDD (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did. Accidentely used the Dutch shortcut The Banner _talk 18:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Lord forgive me for my synny syn syns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I could see having a category of "black days" or something because that's the only one significantly populated, but there's no way we need this when it's almost empty and most of the contents have nothing to do with each other. Specs112 t c 17:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC we used to have just such a category prior to its own deletion on the same grounds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right! Good memory. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 00:11, 29 November 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.

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 merge with ((Stars of Virgo)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is a redundant copy of Template:Stars of Virgo, which is actually transcluded here and used as the base of this template's info. Template:Stars of Virgo is one in a series, (Template:Stars of Andromeda, Template:Stars of Aquarius... etc.) and would appear to be the one to be kept. EmanWilm (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the older template, and is not redundant, since it contains more information that just stars. Redirect ((stars of Virgo)) to ((Virgo)) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redirect ((stars of Virgo)) to ((Virgo)) as well, more information is present. This would be inline with the ((Universe navboxes)) pattern. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:33, 24 November 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

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, as unused. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Preview skin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is not used at all now. Probably it was created for ((Select skin)), but the latter stopped to use the TfD in May 2010, so it's totally useless now. Thanks in advance. Ahora (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Select skin, to have an option to choose only one skin (say have a "|skin=x" to choose to display only one choice) -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt if merger is valuable at the cost of (a bit) complicating the code. ((preview skin)) was added two options recently. I think ((preview skin)) as-is is ok, showing all available skins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahora (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 December 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.

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) 00:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logical symbols (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been set up to list articles about the individual logical symbols. I do not believe the individual logical symbols have any separate notability. The articles should be deleted or turned into disambiguation pages pointing to the articles on the use of thee logical symbol or their use in IPA and the unicode tables dealing with named groups of symbols. Dmcq (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq, why don't conclude to change the template: link to the concept, not the glyph? -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --The way I see it, WP:MATH has been told time and time again that the articles under its scope are unreadable, inaccessible, and confusing. In this regard, all the naysayers have ZERO credibility in criticizing the existence of this template. The symbols are the most significant part of the confusion on the part of the average-everyday-reader (remember them?). The template is for the symbols, not the operations. They are each certainly notable individually, having been used commonly in numerous credible, and notable publications. So I can't think of a more irresponsible or foolish idea than removing anything that helps clarify the use of these symbols.Greg Bard (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, please do not use words like "ZERO credibility", "irresponsible" and "foolish". It deminishes your argument (we are here for reasoning!), and I think most editors are better than that. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (I see Greg still doesn't understand XfD.) Although I agree that the WP:MATH articles are often unreadable, that template doesn't help. An article on the logical symbols might help, or a template with the (usual)symbols (not necessarily these) pointing to the operations, but a template with the symbol glyphs pointing to articles on the symbols is not helpful except possibly to an anti-mathematical lexicologist. I agree that the articles on the symbols should be deleted or repurposed, but the template is not useful even with the articles in their present state, or in any state they are likely to be in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what really gets me about the template rather than that the articles are not notable. Thanks for saying what I meant but hadn't worked out properly. Dmcq (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, in your view, Arthur, do I not understand about X for discussion? Please do educate, or keep your presumptions to yourself.Greg Bard (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, everyone, and stick to discussing policy. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg: You said Oppose instead of Keep. You've been around long enough to know that your !vote needs to be specific. For that matter, there is something to be said for merging it into ((Punctuation marks)), where it was for a few hours, and not using it in any logic articles except possibly those on specific symbols which do not have a significant section on use of the symbol.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatev. Arthur. Whatev. Yes, interestingly, it was part of the punctuation tamplate, and logical symbols are punctuation, but it was thought to be too crowded, so this was a natural solution. They have included tokens that are not punctuation, so it remains to be seem what will evolve. However, separating out the logical symbols makes complete sense, so I see the opposition at WP:MATH as mindless reactionary conservatism. Wise up. People other than mathematicians need to be able to navigate this stuff. Greg Bard (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some "User:Arthur Rubin" opening with (I see Greg still doesn't understand XfD.) jab I cannot read or follow. Arthur Rubin, if you are sincere, what do you mean to say? -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He fixed it. See above line starting with "@Greg: You" for details. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, who fixed what for whom, Arthur Robin? -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see any reason for deleting a template that applies here. We can't decide on the notability of a group of articles in a template discussion; if they aren't notable, they should be individually listed in AfD's. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The list of reasons there is clearly not intended to be complete. If you want a more specific reason, it appears to attempt be a navigation template over topics related only indirectly through another topic, whether or not those subjects should have an article. It is not helpful in any article in which it yet appears, and is misleading in some of the articles to which it has been added; e.g., List of logic symbols. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I do not agree with the reasons given by the nom, but it should be deleted for other reasons. The template creates the mistaken impression that the symbols listed are unique to logic wherever it is used. This has led to the template being used in articles dedicated to each symbol as though logic is the sole context in which the symbol gets used, and since the article then deals with the symbol in diverse contexts unrelated to the template (e.g. ⊥ for perpendicular as well as falsum), this gives undue weight to a particular use. An article on symbols used in logic may make sense, but not a template. — Quondum 18:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how you come to that conclusion. A NATO template with a list of member countries does not mean that those country articles are only concerned with NATO -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You may read my phrase "wherever it is used" above as "wherever it has been used". Until it finds a proper use, it shouldn't exist. It does not belong in articles on symbols or typography, and in articles on logic a link to an article listing logical operations (rather than symbols) is more suitable that the template. — Quondum 06:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your example "⊥ for perpendicular as well as falsum" is exactly what the article ⊥ says. And the template does not claim otherwise. If one would make a template on say mathematical symbols, it could be on that page too. In other words: the template does not claim the symbol for logic only. (Like the Barack Obama page has navigation templates about the US presidency and the Nobel peace prize). -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not said anything against the articles on the symbols, and I think I've made clear my position that a template in one field of use of a set of symbols dominating the lead (as it was used) seems inappropriate. If it was used the same way as the ((NATO)) template is (at the end, collapsing, along with several other templates for other areas), my comments would have less applicability, no? I've given my input; make of it what you will. — Quondum 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This would be helpful to the general reader. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We have list of logic symbols and we have articles on the concepts of quantification and we have articles on the unicode groups of characters. Why would anyone want to look up turned E as a separate topic? It just isn't a topic. Nobody has written an article about the symbol as opposed to the concept of quantification. It is only notable in a group with other symbols. The navigation template sends people to something talking about the glyph which is not notable in itself and stops them getting to anything useful or notable. What do you see it as helpful for? Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to understand exactly why people are using Wikipedia. What you need to understand is that there are people out there who think differently than you, and you need to learn how to respect that. You are a mathematician, and YOU don't NEED a template like this. That's fine, don't use it. For others, however, the symbols are the most mysterious part of mathematics, and this is one of the most productive moves we have seen to help people like that. It also helps editors in making consistent articles. Greg Bard (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about explaining to some other people in this forum who are not mathematicians? If you could just say why a person would want an article that talked about a glyph when the look up logic symbols I would be most grateful. Why is it better to have a link to something that talks about a glyph like turned E rather than just having links to Unicode mathematical operators and list of logic symbols? Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template offers a quick overview, which is often the point of templates. I think people just starting to learn logic might find it helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of what? have you actually followed a link on it? Why is it better than a link to list of logic symbols or list of logic symbols or a link to a specific article like Existential quantification rather than a hindrance to such a person? Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as mathematically incoherent and anti-informative. This makes no distinction between typography (marks on paper or computer screen, e.g. ampersand) and mathematical operations (things that combine abstract values to produce other abstract values e.g. Sheffer stroke). This is a distinction that should be kept very clear, not blurred over in this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Important - Please see the thread at Template talk:Punctuation marks#Logical symbols, where I attempted to summarize The Current State of things, and asked for suggestions about what everyone thought was the longterm goal for the various Grapheme navigational templates. We can't consider them individually, but only as a group - ((Punctuation marks)), ((Diacritical marks)), ((Logical symbols)), ((Currency signs)), and ((Common typographical symbols)). NOT isolated, but a group. Instead of TfD, starting a discussion at one of the two associated wikiprojects would have been preferable. (To repeat: There are useful details in that first linked thread) —Quiddity (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to read and comment on the discussion there, but the fact still remains that the template is not helpful on any of the articles it has been added to (so far), and harmful to understanding on some. I can imagine an article it would be helpful on, but no such article has yet been written, and it would probably be put up for immediate deletion as WP:SYNTHESIS. (For what it's worth, the question of whether therefore sign and turned A are punctuation is also probably of interest to most of the people interested in the article. I would lean against, for both, but am willing to leave it to typographers as experts. On the other hand, the information in it might be suitable for an expandable element of ((punctuation marks)). ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe part of the motivation for the creation of ((Logical symbols)), was simply to decrease the size of ((Punctuation marks)). A lot of this boils down to subjective (and highly individual) perspectives on the Desirability of Navboxes (some people dislike them intensely, some people create them obsessively), and the various repercussions thereof (Merging all-in-one versus Splitting into many, overlap vs non-overlap, pros/cons of collapsible sections, etc).
  I'm hoping that some topic-experts can shine a light on what would be a useful way to group all the various types of glyph into assorted navboxes (possibly overlapping, possibly not), so that the readers who do use navboxes will be aided in their task of learning about related glyphs. —Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's getting towards something that might be okay. We don't have an article about the left curly bracket but that's the sort of thing that is being done about logical symbols. The link should be to a concept not a symbol, if you actually look at how the punctuation symbols are arranged left curly bracket is included with other brackets and links to brackets. Articles should be about notable topics and brackets are notable. Dmcq (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as actually confusing. The symbols used for Logical conjunction, for example, vary quite widely according to author, tradition and era. This template does not appear to help disentangle that sort of confusion. Deltahedron (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The first and parts of the second column of list of logic symbols are the minimum that would need to go into a template that was not misleading. That makes it too big for a navigation template. That might have a place on a Logic notation page, but I can't think of many other places it could fit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  OOPS. Logic notation redirects to list of logic symbols. Oh, well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After initially leaning keep I've been persuaded by the arguments, in particular by Quondum. The articles linked aren't simply on logic symbols but on all uses of them; looking e.g. at & it only briefly mentions the logical use while discussing its far more widespread use in programming, after covering its broader use and history. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, also per Quondrum and Blackburne's analysis. The template has been added (replacing the more general Template:Punctuation marks) prominently on the articles ampersand and tilde, as if the logical use of these marks were their primary use (when in fact it is not). The reader would be better served by a link in the "See also" section to List of logic symbols, since this template presents standard typographical symbols in the false light of being primarily "logical symbols". That gives undue weight to a particular usage of typographical symbols. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the nominator feels the articles should be deleted, that should be done first. If the articles/sections exist, the template is useful. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not useful because it mixes two types articles. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rewrite per Quondum & David Eppstein. This is would be useful iff it managed to not mix articles about concepts/semantics with articles about glyphs; See my preliminary comment here. I'm skeptical that a template about glyphs is useful, particularly because in programming etc. different glyphs are used, e.g. "|" stands for OR not for Sheffer stroke and "&" is used for AND etc. Just imagine you are newbie to logic and try to figure out what "&" might mean in a formula by reading the article ampersand; or what "|" might mean by reading the article on vertical bar. I'm rather surprised the editor who wrote this template had this initiative when Template:Logical connectives, started by the same editor, manages to be useful by linking to concepts. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pause please. [User:David Eppstein below has made points I'd like to reflect]. As with every script (like Cyrillic script), this script set deserves a WP:navbox (this time in the form of a sidebar). The symbols can do their own job. (OK, one could merge it with other ((punctuation marks)), but then do propose so) Those arguing about "logical meaning" could take a look at page A. That is a letter with multiple meanings, and still has a sidebar navbox of its set. And as for the logic meanings: there is always ((Logical connectives)) on the NAND page (oops). -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing the point. The problem is not that we have a navbox that collects certain related typographic glyphs; that's obviously ok. The problem is that we have a navbox that's half about typography, half about mathematical logic, and doesn't make any distinction between these two not-very-closely-related subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(thanks for clarifying, at last someone did). -DePiep (talk) 01:02, 1 December 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.