Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 26 January 28 >

January 27 edit

Conrail templates edit

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Module:Adjacent stations/Conrail. All transclusions replaced; the Cleveland-area templates were already unused. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (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-subtle3 edit

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).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "uw-subtle" series is for edits involving unexplained small changes that may be vandalism. However, level 3 is for assuming bad faith (see WP:UWLEVELS), and once one is assuming bad faith of a subtle change, it is vandalism, and the vandalism series can be used. Bsherr (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this template for cases where it is difficult to prove that the edits are wrong, but the editor is persistently making the changes without discussion, this template is intended to make clear that unexplained changes of unknown validity will be treated as vandalism should they be continued. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a user has received uw-subtle1 and uw-subtle2 warnings yet persists, giving him a Uw-vandalism3 warning instead of Uw-subtle3 isn't as good, because it doesn't tell him exactly what he needs to do to avoid being blocked. Uw-subtle3 does. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)*:[reply]
    Guy Macon, if a user has received uw-subtle1 and uw-subtle2 warnings, both of which explain subtle vandalism, isn't it redundant for the third, now assuming bad faith, warning to also explain it? --Bsherr (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Thinks about it...) No. I don't think so. That argument could be used for pretty much any level 3 warning:
    If a user has received Uw-genre1 and Uw-genre2 warnings, both of which explain improper genre changes, isn't it redundant for the third, now assuming bad faith, warning to also explain it?
    If a user has received Uw-unsourced1 and Uw-unsourced1 warnings, both of which explain adding unsourced content, isn't it redundant for the third, now assuming bad faith, warning to also explain it?
    If a user has received Uw-advert1 and Uw-advert2 warnings, both of which explain adding promotional/advertising material, isn't it redundant for the third, now assuming bad faith, warning to also explain it?
    Looking over of most commonly used warning templates, most explain the offense at level 1, 2, and 3. I did notice one exception though; uw-accessdate1 and uw-accessdate2 doen't have a uw-accessdate3.
    The bottom line is this; you don't need to explain why you don't feel a need for Uw-subtle3. You need to explain why editors like me and Tornado chaser should be prevented from using Uw-subtle3 when we clearly want to do so. What does it hurt?
    User warning templates are just a convenience. They free up a bit more time so Tornado chaser can chase tornados and so I can spend more time working on the most important page on Wikipedia. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That must be my fault, because that's not what I'm getting at. I'm not saying there should be no explanation. I'm saying that the explanation in uw-vandalism3 is sufficient. In the same way we don't have {{uw-tempabuse3}} or {{uw-thumb3}}, but instead use {{uw-disruptive3}}. Or we don't have {{uw-blank3}} but instead use {{uw-delete3}}. Genre, unsourced, and advert, although bad behavior, are not Wikipedia:Vandalism, so using uw-vandalism3 for those wouldn't be an accurate warning. What I'm saying is that bad-faith subtle vandalism is vandalism, and doesn't need to be distinguished by the time you get to the level 3 warning. That's been the status quo ante for at least 6 years. --Bsherr (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2019 (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/2019_January_27&oldid=884247474"