Forum:NRV or ICU?

Forums: Index > Help > NRV or ICU?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 2315 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What is the main difference between {{NRV}} and {{ICU}}? --AAA! (AAAA) 03:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ICU is smaller.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean, what type of pages would you tag NRV with and what pages would you tag ICU with? --AAA! (AAAA) 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

NRV is the older one, ICU is the newer one. Their functionality and purpose are exactly the same except that several recurring complaints and problems were addressed in the creation of ICU. I reccommend using ICU for NRV/ICU-able pages, but several people are still quite attached to using NRV, so it hangs around. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That would explain this:

This article needs more work. See NRV and below for details. Incorrect usage. Read instructions at {{ICU}}.

This article appears to have no redeeming value and is hence a candidate for speedy deletion. If it can be expanded to be more than useless clutter, please do so and remove this message. If this article is not improved within 7 days it may be huffed without mercy. Removal of this notice without a permissable reason can result in a ban.

--AAA! (AAAA) 05:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So... We're still allowed to use good ol', down-to-earth, run of the mill, small town, plain folk {{NRV}}, if we so choose? -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I just use NRV. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Only real men use NRV. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you are not allowed, but those who would stop you are too lazy to do so.---Rev. Isra (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• WTF?...none of the articles on Uncyc. have redeeming value. — H. Peebles - D - HS 08:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you want to see all the pages that do.-- -Kjhf!- (feeling chatty?) 17:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Those pages are a mix of NRV and ICU tagged pages. They all use Category:NRV because they are functionally equivalent. That still doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily decide to go against policy.---Rev. Isra (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When was it decided that NRV was against policy? Is there a log of this decision? --Algorithm 10:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think there needs to be some kind of public log of when decisions like that are made on IRC? Not an automatic log of everything, just of when important decisions get made. If only to clear up confusion and stop this stuff happening in future, it might be a good idea. -- 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this was not one such decision. A few months ago the new template was hashed out in the forum, there was a forum topic explaining the switch, and all the policy guidelines were updated. I did everything except put up a sitenotice. The people who are still using NRV are a very few stubborn old admins, who like being different, and anonIPs and a few noobs who apparently can't even bother to read the Template page once, because they never even use a datestamp. I've been going through them tonight and pretty universally, 90+% of NRV uses violate about 3 or 4 different long-standing policies. As a result, I am changing the template to yell at people more more loudly if they don't even use the template right. For those of you who are allowed to use NRV and really must, you'll have to remember to datestamp it with 5 tildes and add either "fix" or "fix=YourMessage" to get the template to appear exactly as it once did. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Both UN:NRV and UN:ICU link to the same page, which says

(....) or the older and more humorously insulting {{NRV}} for "No Redeeming Value",

and Template:NRV says

This template is being phased out in favor of {{ICU}}. Consider using {{ICU|~~~~~|sub=original}} instead.

Seems pretty clear to me, but maybe you could put more insistence in it. Or how about merging them to one template if they're equivalent? --Gnome  …MUN F@H 11:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)