Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 4 December 6 >

December 5[edit]

Template:ProvinceofCanada-politician-stub[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SILENCE. Of note, the last of the three transclusions was on an article already well beyond stub class, and rated as such per its talk page. Stub templates should not be used on articles that are not accordingly rated stub class on their talk pages. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Template of unclear necessity. It's actually being used on just three people total, two of whom are also templated for {{UpperCanada-politician-stub}} -- but since the other template files people in a dedicated Category:Upper Canada politician stubs, while this one throws people directly into the parent Category:Canadian politician stubs, that means that two of the three people this template is being used on are undesirably duplicate-categorized in both a subcategory and a parent category at the same time. Even more importantly, stub templates and categories are simply grouping Wikipedia articles by a maintenance state -- "short articles that need expansion" -- so they do not necessarily need to comprehensively mirror all the historical complexities of the mainspace category tree. Upper Canada-->Canada West-->Ontario is just a progression of name changes applied what's always been fundamentally the same political entity, not radically different or unrelated things that automatically need their own separate stub categories. Stub categories just have to group related stubs together for maintenance purposes, and don't need to convey as much information to the reader as the article text -- so just because the province happened to officially be the "Canada West" half of a "Province of Canada" at the time a person served in office doesn't automatically mean they need to have a "Province of Canada" stub template separately from Upper Canada or Ontario templates, especially if it's only being used on one person who isn't already in a more specific subcategory of the category this template is funneling its entries into. The body text of the article should be kept accurate, obviously, but the "Canada West" vs. "Ontario" distinction isn't so critically important that it would be meaningfully wrong to stub sort a "Canada West" politician as an Ontario politician in an internal maintenance queue.
And even if this were to be kept, the duplicate categorization issue would unequivocally still have to be resolved regardless. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:HBO[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unnecessary template and was previously deleted as a duplicated template in early 2019. Requested speedy deletion but was contested by creator. What should have been done is a discussion on recreating the HBO template, as what the creator effectively did was recreate a duplicated template with a few more articles, a few plain text names (should be avoided), an executives, defunct and former ventures, and a miscellaneous sections — this could have been added to the HBO section of the WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template that it is part of (have added the rest there except the executives with it being part of WarnerMedia), and there is the problem of having too many templates. The Defunct and former ventures section is problematic in that there is information that belongs in the article which would have references to support it, whereas this is a navbox for navigating. Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response: AFAIK, as a frequent viewer and editor of the HBO article, I have never seen a dedicated template regarding the network in the timeframe he claims. The template was created close to two months prior, based on reasoning similar to that behind the creation of other television-network-specific templates (or technically, in this case, operating unit) that focus on their multinational corporate structure (e.g., Template:BBC, Template:ESPN, Template:Nickelodeon); I'm not sure how the ones cited have better basis to stand compared to this, especially considering HBO has as widespread an asset portfolio as the cited networks. The editor tagging the template for deletion (whose edits to the HBO and WarnerMedia templates appear to be among the only non-school-focused edits in his contribution history) also severely undermined his case, as he had copied and pasted the entire structure of Template:HBO into Template:WarnerMedia Studios & Networks (compare the section from this version in September to the current section layout); some of the HBO template's content wasn't included in the WarnerMedia template beforehand, including a list of former properties operated by Home Box Office Inc. that would normally not be included in a template for media conglomerates like WarnerMedia due to their strict focus on properties currently under their purview. An alternative solution I had was to embed the HBO template as a WarnerMedia child template (e.g., how the Warner Bros. template is already structured), but the editor rejected the idea offhand and repasted its contents... this was after another user overseeing a prior speedy deletion request deemed that request insufficient to stand. Moreso, the editor twice chose to remove the template from all HBO-related articles (including HBO and Home Box Office, Inc.) in breach of standard protocol that usually allows a template marked for possible deletion to stay on its accordant article(s) until a decision to delete occurs. Much of the issues cited by the editor appear to be bureaucratic in nature, than based on standard WP content rules. TVTonightOKC (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the deletion log. You recreated the template two months ago. Wrong, you copied what was listed in the HBO section of the WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template and added further content when you could have just added it to this template instead of recreating the HBO one (re-read my description above!). Contribution history is irrelevant (it's more than that, but schools is my main focus at present), this is an encyclopedia. If fact, you were the editor that caused a mess with the WarnerMedia related templates! You contested the speedy deletion. There isn't that much to add for HBO to require a standalone template. I removed the template after moving the rest of the content into the HBO section of the WarnerMedia Studios & Networks template — the problem we had in articles is unnecessary duplication of articles in the two templates — why need two when it can be sufficiently covered by the one? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, coming from a repeat editor of articles relating to HBO and its sister assets, I had no knowledge of the existence of an HBO template existing previously. None of the content was copied from the WarnerMedia Studios and Networks template, but was sourced from the Home Box Office, Inc. asset list. The double-bracket was the only format error, which I fixed, and I tried to format the treeing of the HBO template in a manner that avoided such errors. Under WP rules, the creator of a tagged template/article has the right to contest speedy deletion, if they disagree with the reasoning behind it, since they can't remove the speedy deletion notice themselves. Also, considering HBO has several current and defunct services that have operated worldwide, the claim "there's nothing much to add" would seemingly invalidate the the other network-specific templates I cited, since Template:ESPN has duplication with Template:Disney and Template:Nickelodeon has duplication with Template:ViacomCBS by that logic, but both have been able to stand because other editors have expressed no issue with their existence. Sections like "Defunct and former ventures" and "Miscellaneous" that were in the HBO template would not normally be included in templates for most media conglomerates like WarnerMedia because the focus is typically and strictly on the existing company assets. Treeing Template:HBO into Template:WarnerMedia Studios & Networks (as the Warner Bros. template is already) would have been much more sufficient to address your "duplication" claim rather than deleting the former entirely. TVTonightOKC (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Michigan waters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, and VERY large. Hard to navigate, i think the List is easier to use. --TheImaCow (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:London bus and coach stations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:London bus and coach stations. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:London bus and coach stations with Template:London bus, BRT and coach stations.
Both of these are almost identical, and as such it seems silly to have both. Thus I think merging them is the way forward. Dunarc (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-JungwonTalk 10:34, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:FK Shkupi squad[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A navigation box that doesn't navigate between articles. Only 3 bluelinks out of 20. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EN-JungwonTalk 10:34, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Moldovan men's domestic football league in 2017[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Soft delete, WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broken/unused navbox --TheImaCow (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Momo languages[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, included in Template:Grassfields Bantu languages --TheImaCow (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Monaghan Junior Football Championship[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Soft delete, WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, contains only red links --TheImaCow (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Monte Brice[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Soft delete, WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused navbox, contains only one link --TheImaCow (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Noflag-rt[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Soft delete, WP:REFUND applies. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:North Rias Line[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. per WP:SILENCE. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, links are included in Template:Rias Line --TheImaCow (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2020 (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).

Country templates part 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31 deprecated {{s-line}} templates in this category replaced by Module:Adjacent stations/NSW TrainLink and Module:Adjacent stations/State Rail Authority. This completes the New South Wales conversion. Fleet Lists (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Redundant to the adjacent stations templates. Techie3 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2020 (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).

Template:Uw-vandalism1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Uw-vandalism1 with Template:Uw-disruptive1.
Content of both templates is similar, not drawing a line between vandalism and disruptive editing. The proposal is to merge uw-vandalism1 (and only level 1) to uw-disruptive1, which contains more productive text (links to WP:HOW and WP:Policies and guidelines). Discussion attempt at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 17#Merge {{uw-vand1}} and {{uw-disruptive1}}? Opalzukor (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose merging Template:Uw-disruptive1 is basically a more descriptive version of Template:Uw-vandalism1. But please be aware that these templates are both used by twinkle, and merging the two templates may break a lot of stuff. Littlecat456💬(.log) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTVAND. If the templates are too close together, the solution is to separate them, not to merge them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for this proposal is that Template:uw-vandalism1 doesn't use the word "vandalism" except in its name. Agree these, as currently worded, say the same thing, so merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the solution is to make them more distinct, if desired. Otherwise, there is no maintenance improvement by wording these two warning messages. At worst this is destructive and prevents such changes being made, and at best this is make work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge! Merge! Merge! I have been thinking the same thing. Why bother with the vandalism template? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - So similar and promotes WP:AGF - I do realise I'm on the wrong account right now, but I'll probably forget otherwise Ed6767 (talk · contribs) RedWarn (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Similar to uw-disruptive1 with the difference that that one is better On second thought Oppose, swayed by ProcrastinatingReaders and Amorymeltzers comments Merry Christmas! Asartea Talk Contribs! 17:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, substitute uw vandalism1 with uw-disruptive1 to give the TW and RW devs time to remove it. Can a template editor do it? 4thfile4thrank (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: RedWarn will work fine as long as {{uw-vandalism1}} redirects to the {{uw-disruptive1}}. Unsure about Twinkle, however, so someone ought to inform the maintainers for TW. Chlod (say hi!) 19:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle will likewise be fine, although it would probably remove the redirect as an option. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, while that makes sense, is exactly why this proposal is an awful idea. We merge templates when there's a similarity and merging causes a maintenance or usability improvement. This has zero maintenance improvement, is misleading, and causes usability to get worse. The support here is perplexing to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: I would argue that {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} is the better template. It links to multiple handy policies, and links to the welcome page. The messgaes are similar in content (similarity), and merging would make every instance of {{subst:uw-vand1}} have the advantages {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} has (usability/maintenance improvement). Could you please elaborate on how the nom is misleading? Opal|zukor(discuss) 14:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that the change itself is misleading for readers/editors, not that anyone's comment (or the nom) is. There's no real maintenance improvement here - these templates are rarely ever edited in substance (see the history), and they're ultra basic. The point is that these two things are distinct. Someone spamming an article with nonsense is not the same as someone doing something pointy / pushing an agenda. How similar/different the first-level warning template should be is a matter of content, but these should definitely not be merged to stop such changes from happening altogether. Disruption and vandalism are worlds apart. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair. Merging would prevent productive editing towards differing the two. Thanks for taking the time to explain why this was a bad idea. Sorry for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 20:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Procrastinating and would like to make the point that even if the wording of the level 1 vandalism and disruption templates were to be identical, that would still not be a good argument for a merger, since the value lies in keeping two separate tracks because there is two distinct use cases. CapnZapp (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is such a simple and elegant suggestion. I like the idea of leaving {{uw-vandalism1}} in TW so people who would normally use it are switched over without them having to relearn their muscle memory. I have no experience with RW so I can't comment. –Fredddie™ 08:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ProcrastinatingReader is exactly right — disruptive editing is not always the same thing as vandalism, see WP:VANDNOT, item 3. I don't see a huge problem with the two at the moment, but of course they could be more different. Both should still AGF, which for {{uw-vandalism1}} may mean not using the word "vandalism," but that's not a merge reason. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the point above that "these templates are similar so they could be merged" is a superficial argument - even if the level 1 warnings used identical language there would still be value in keeping the two tracks distinct and separate. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amorymeltzer: While vandalism and disruptive editing are not the same, the templates in question are. While The Bushranger's suggestion may be immediately more effective in separating these, I don't believe that it's possible to separate them to a reasonable degree within the level-1 criteria and simultaneously considering the differences between vandalism and disruptive editing. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor(discuss) 14:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really germane, but {{uw-vandalism1}} is overwhelmingly more heavily used than {{uw-disruptive1}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if the problem is these two templates are too similar, the solution is to WP:BOLDly edit one or the other to make it more distinct, not to merge and imply disruptive editing and vandalism are the same thing. (Maybe we need a "TfD is not for cleanup" mantra?) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or an even bolder solution: realizing the two templates do not need to be phrased differently to keep them separate! (see my 12 December comments above) CapnZapp (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a reasonable question is, how would we go about making the templates more distinct, if that is desirable? Of course not all disruptive editing is vandalism, but all vandalism is disruptive editing. If there is no need to communicate anything special about vandalism, then a merge would seem appropriate. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disruptive editing not always the same thing as vandalism; I might not want to call an editor making a disruptive edit a "vandal" CapnZapp (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnZapp: The templates don't call anyone a vandal. They AGF, because they're level-1 templates. Opal|zukor(discuss) 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that doesn't change anything. It remains valuable to retain a "Uw-disruptive track" separate from the "Uw-vandalism track", and to do this we need distinct level 1 templates. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnZapp: Fair. I see your point, and upon closure of this tfd by an uninvolved admin, be bold and improve uw-vandalism myself. Cheers. Opal|zukor(discuss) 20:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! You're always welcome to be bold (assuming you're aware of WP:BRD of course) Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is a better solution than rewording the templates to make them more different (although I'd support doing that if the templates are not merged). No, not all disruptive editing is vandalism, but the question isn't whether they are the same, or whether we need two different sets of templates; the question is whether we need two different level 1 templates. If we AGF at level 1, it means we assume vandalism and disruption are basically like test edits. So we really only need one AGF lvl 1 template for vandalism, disruption, or tests (and possibly others). They can split out at lvl 2 and up. All other things being equal, the fewer templates we have, the better all around; we should only have separate templates when they need to have distinct language; lvl1 vandalism/disruption/test is not such a case. Levivich harass/hound 23:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask you how and why They can split out at lvl 2 and up. To me that would mean the decision to categorize the edit as vandalism or disruption would deferred to the next instance, meaning that the first responder (the editor posting the level 1 template) loses the capability to choose. I'm asking here because my opinion on this TfD is based on the assumption there is value in deciding already from the start. It gives the first responder a modicum of power to guide further responses - "guide", not "steer": if those later responders disagree the editor in question is more of a vandal than a disruptor (or vice versa) they are of course free to actively switch warning tracks. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "categorize the edits" but if we're AGFing at lvl1 then we are not calling the edit either vandalism or disruption. In fact, the more I think about it, the more strongly I feel that we shouldn't even have a template called "uw-vandalism" that sends an AGF notice. Imagine if a police officer walked up to you and politely asked you to keep your voice down and then that was officially logged as a "level 1 terrorism warning". :-) Levivich harass/hound 15:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As already stated, disruptive editing and vandalism are distinct categories of non-constructive editing, and they should be treated as such. I think a better solution would be to revise vandalism1 to better reflect the template's intent (and do the same for disruptive1 if necessary), not to reduce the specificity it could have. Perryprog (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Disruptive editing and vandalism are totally different and they should have different template messages no matter what. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:43, 12 December 2020 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_5&oldid=994095598"