Template talk:Private Use Area (Unicode)

Proposed format change
I'd like to change this template from its current form to the block article infoboxes. Here's what the new template would look like:

I think the infoboxes provide a more familiar format while including Unicode version history. Any items missing from the current template, like character property, could be put into Private Use Areas which is the only article that transcludes this template. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As it is now, it is more suitable for in-text placement. The topic is the "PUA" concept, not the blocks (and I despise the plural naming). I thinks it is solved by substituting the template in the article, to keep in an in-text table overview. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me expand a bit. "Block" in Unicode is a poor concept for an encyclopedia. It does not add about any information, because it is just a range of existing, continuous numbers. Nothing special about stating "number AB12 is in range A000–AFFF". A block title is not defining anything (except itself, the block name). Blocks are just helping us to keep some tentative overview.
 * Compare this to those more powerful concepts, like script, and General Category. For example, when describing a script block names are a hint, but no guarantee for completeness.
 * This is why I prefer to describe the concept of Private Use. eg, the Unicode promise: 'will never be allocated to a character', and the defining General Category=Co.
 * This too is why I don't like the plural in article title. It is not about those three blocks and their names (btw, note that names Supplementary Private Use Area-A/B cover all of planes 15 and 16, ie including their two final code points?!). See also this (failed) move proposal for arguments.
 * But ... why not add a dedicated section "PUA Blocks"? And add those three block templates allright, possibly with a description? The current table could be adjusted (reduced). -DePiep (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added them to Private Use Areas, as it is definitely an improvement. This is not any claim on the outcome of this talk. -DePiep (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with adding the infoboxes to Private Use Areas and am no longer proposing changing this template. Also, thanks for pointing me to the rename history. DRMcCreedy (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)