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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Usermessage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only five transclusions, at least some of which document the template's existence rather than using it. Others are in archives of departed users. Can be subst: there if needed, but has no practical use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably was used as a subst: template. Don't see that removing it is an advantage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete – redundant to normal editing interface. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:55, 18 October 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Music of the Reformation era (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are so many issues with this one. The name and scope of the template are completely different things, "Music of the Reformation" vs "Music of the 1500s". Most, if not all of the forms are not exclusively of the 1500s or of the reformation. (E.g. "Paraphrase mass" is not a reformation form and was from 1400–1600, "Cyclic mass" was a catholic form from 1430–1600). There is no "Music of the 1500s" article or category for this to even align with, likewise there is no "Music of the Reformation" article (Protestant church music during and after the Reformation is close, but not the same thing. "Music of the 1500s" here has a completely Eurocentric scope. 1500s by actual definition means "1500–1509" (like 1510s, 1520s) so that makes this make even less sense. There is no "Music of the 1400s/1300s..." templates or articles. The issues with this template are endless – there is just no reasonable need or purpose for navigation that this template would provide and it's all OR... Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The template was based off of the main Template:Reformation, so that music related articles that are linked to in the main Reformation template could be accessed from each other without the hefty bulk of the main Reformation template. It is okay for a large article like Reformation, but would overwhelm small articles. As for the name, yes, it is northern-European-centric because that is where the Reformation occurred.

If you would like to rename the template to ReformationEraMusic I support it. I had named it in a similar way prior to an edit made on 3 June 2020 which added 1500s to the name. At the time I wrote the template, Protestant church music during and after the Reformation had not been written or at least published yet. There is support for changing the name of the article, but as the author has been absent from Wikipedia I have not been aggressive with it. If you follow the history on the editor talk pages I think you will understand why I might want to wait and see if she will come back to Wikipedia.

As for the years involved, they are inclusive of the Reformation era. Just as the Reformation itself included all sorts of ideas that had been circulating in the pre-Reformation era, music included many things which had existed prior to the Reformation. If this is an issue for a particular article where you think the template is too narrow in scope for the article, you can bring it to the talk page of the individual article. Such things can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis, such as by discussing things with User:Francis Schonken, User:Shruti14, and User:Gerda Arendt. They have edited either this template or the related ones pertaining to Lutheran hymnody and hymns. User:RandomCanadian had some interest too, but has since been banned for sock puppetry.

As for original research, no, it is not. There are a large number of textbooks used in colleges to teach music history. They discuss the topics involved in the template. Some editors on Wikipedia have expertise in this topic and can affirm that these are common enough on their own.

Proof that this template is used:[1]. See the trend prior to February 2019, when I added the page to the template? It is somewhat lower than afterwards. And there was a large spike in March 2019, the first full month after the template was added.

Francis abridged the template on the basis that it should not have deep links to sections within articles. In general, I disagree and prefer the older version of the template. If deep links must be removed, the problem can be solved by creating redirects to the sections, similar to how Catholic Reformation redirects to a section.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: The biggest issue is the current title of "Music of the 1500s" and the inclusion of secular music that have no link to the reformation. The whole point of the English Madrigal school was that it was for Madrigals, which are famously secular music forms. Aza24 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The navigation here also makes little sense, why would someone want to go to Moravian traditional music is they're on the English Madrigal School page? Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw my comment on "Eurocentric" had to do with the fact that the table is titled "Music of the 1500s" – not what the file is titled, two things that still directly contradict each other Aza24 (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – afaik the *origin* of the template is by someone who wanted to say something about the early days of Protestant music (which maybe isn't really a thing... Protestant music is a redirect), but had the superstition that the template had better chances of survival if nothing referring to Protestantism would appear in its name. So, the original name of the template was ((1500smusic)). Leading to a mixed bag of sorts. Neither "1500s music" nor "Music of the Reformation era" are suitable for a navigational template of this type. I'd say, write an article about such topics first: if such article is well-referenced, coherent, and shows that such a navbox would be possible and useful, then ask for a REFUND (or: simply start a new box). In the mean while the current box (in its various manifestations) is a mix of confusion and unreferenced disinformation. Rather a disgrace than a point of reference for the encyclopedia. So, clean delete would at this point be the best way forward imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Francis, + I don't like side navboxes with collapsed information, any of those, as not good for accessibility. Compare discussions of the opera side navboxes, for example Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 October 8. If revived at all (which would need a more precise scope), as a footer navbox please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is kept, then it really should not have the collapsed sections. Delete it or display it in full. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or uncollapse content. Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and adjust as needed so that headings and content match the scope - namely, music of the Reformation era in the time and the place at which the Reformation occurred. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 20:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no clearly defined scope that anything here can be matched too. "Reformation era in the time and the place at which the Reformation occurred" may seem reasonable from the outside, but looking closer such a scope would include all music at those times/places, including all secular music and all music that is not inherently protestant, or has existed before the reformation. Aza24 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There was mutual influence between sacred and secular music forms. Development of music during this period reflected both change and continuation in both. By Reformation era, the time period indicated is later than the Renaissance era, but prior Baroque era.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Madrigal was adopted from Italy, there is not a single word about "reformation" in the Moravian traditional music, Meistersingers were descended from Minnesang, the two masses here are literally Catholic forms of music... Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There was a great deal of continuity between some Protestant music and the music of the pre-Reformation Church. Latin use among Protestants living in continental European cities persisted for 300 years following the Reformation. With respect to the the liturgical hymns known as sequences, it was Trent which innovated, while many Protestants retained the pre-Reformation practice. As for madrigals, they are important for understanding German lieder--and understanding German lieder is essential for explaining the development of early Lutheran hymnody. See [2]--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:06, 17 October 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).

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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Amateur radio in India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use. Should be Subst: and deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without substing. I would rather not have an infobox-looking thing so that an interested user might add an actual one rather than this lookalike standing in the way. I'm happy to also accept a "subst, remove/convert, then delete" close. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 20 October 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).

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 merge to Template:Welsh Highland Railway RDT. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:WHR Line diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Welsh Highland Railway RDT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:WHR Line diagram with Template:Welsh Highland Railway RDT.
Duplication. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, unarguably. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 11 October 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).

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 relisted on 2020 October 25. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Pp-move (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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).

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. While I understand the concerns, and agree with the rationale regarding why it's unused, the discussion has indicated it's fairly clear that this template pair is extremely (and increasingly) unlikely to be used, even in passing, with the existence of user-assistance scripts and similar templates such as ((closing)). There is enough discussion here that it cannot really be considered a soft deletion, but if anyone wants this userfied for their own personal use that can be done. Primefac (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:AfDh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More important than it being unused (given that it may only be needed sporadically) is that ((Closing)) serves the same function more generally, making this one redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: If this is deleted then ((AfDb)) also need to be deleted. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, paired templates that don't mention one another in their documentation? Delete them both. --RL0919 (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will be CSD G8. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Deprecate as this will be in the edit history of some deletion discussions and removing it will make tracing the edit history of some deletion discussion more difficult. By "deprecate" I mean change it in a way that existing historical uses don't break but new uses are strongly discouraged. Perhaps adding "do not use after October [day] 2020" to the top and adding the template to a maintenance category so any accidental current uses are quickly tagged-and-bagged. Same with AfDb. If this template hadn't been used for Wikipedia-management, I would say delete. Delete is my second choice. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In the last deletion discussion, Uanfala pointed out that: Of course it would appear unused: it's meant to be used only temporarily until a discussion is closed. Do we actually know if this is used? Particularly by scripts? (Since I would guess 99.9% of AfDs are closed with WP:XFDC these days.) – Joe (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• XFDcloser doesn't have a "put on hold" option. It will remove the templates if present, but you can't use it to add them. The older User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD tool was similar. I didn't find any other script documentation that mentions this template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure this template should be deprecated in favour of something else (((Closing))? admins writing that out by hand?) but there's no indication it's unused. – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Closing)). That way, in edit histories, you can still see what the template means, but it gives the same output as ((closing)) which it is duplicating. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:50, 18 October 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).

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) --Trialpears (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Usercomment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to several other talk page welcome templates; and duplicative of the standard editing window text, which reminds people to sign messages. Also mostly used on the talk pages of long-departed, or banned, editors, with only a handful of uses otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge (if suitable destination exists): I created this template back in 2004, and I abandoned it myself some time ago once duplicate functionality was added to the standard edit window. @Pigsonthewing: How thoroughly did you review the template's current use? Before deleting, could we enlist a bot to post a TFD notification to the 587 talk pages where it's still transcluded? Some semi-random clicks on the transclusions list did turn up active users. --Theodore Kloba (☎) 20:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pigsonthewing, would you suggest redirecting to one of the other templates it's redundant to? If so, which one? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm completely ambivalent. I'd be happy for it to simply be deleted, but if it must be redirected, then I suppose ((Usertalkconcise)) is the closest to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That one is more long winded, and it has a fraction of the transclusions. Not sure it'd make sense to redirect this to that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What exactly is gained by getting rid of this? Qwirkle (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This has 587 transclusions, which is a lot. User talk pages should in general be respected, that's a general guideline (WP:TPO). I would support a merge to a similar template but not a complete deletion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although this is now somewhat duplicated by the edit talk page notice, it isn't necessarily problematic to have it on the page too. Merge target suggested above is inadequate. Deletion doesn't entirely make sense, and merge to there definitely doesn't make sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - couldn't we just merge this template somewhere rather than delete it? As another editor pointed out I see nothing gained by getting rid of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect (I don't know where to), per nom. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I must admit, I'm very confused by a nomination to remove as redundant to another template, but nobody being able to name a suitable redirect target is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am re-voting as keep. ProcrastinatingReader raises a good point; although it is similar to many templates such as ((User talk page)) (some of these are listed at Template:User talk pages and Category:User talk header templates), it is not the same as any of them, and is harmless to leave alone. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 18:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless, somewhat useful, and not redundant enough to forcibly merge. Against "subst-and-delete" which is the normal outcome when a user-talk-page template is deleted. Open to having a merge discussion once suitable merge candidates are found. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the lack of clarity raised above, templates to which this one is functionally redundant - in addition to the native page chrome - include:

• ((Message))
• ((Talk header preload))
• ((Talkpagecool))
• ((User talk-page header))
• ((Usertalkback))

In particular the content of ((Talk header preload)) is word-for-word identical to that of the nominated template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for being so indecisive, but after Pigsonthewing's comment above my previous rationale it is not the same as any of them is invalidated by ((Talk header preload)), which is identical to the nominated template. I thus am again revoting as merge to ((Talk header preload)), probably by adding a |colour= to the target. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm here because I noticed the nomination on Jimbo's talk page, where the template is used. Such prominent usage should not be disrupted. If there's some scope for merger or rationalisation, then this should be done by improvement rather than deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Jimbo's talk page this template is followed by another which duplicates the a welcome message, and yet another which duplicates the advice on how to sign posts, and a duplicate "Click here to start a new topic.". That means that every single point on the nominated template is duplicated by other templates on that page. Even if the template were kept, it is not needed there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and first, please leave a message to at least few users about the template (for instance, a steward is using it), and second, add <noinclude></noinclude> arround the deletion notice; this will avoud ugly notices on pages where the template is transcluded. --Amitie 10g (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see nothing to be gained by deleting this. I prefer having a talk header for a few reasons, but also prefer it be a concise one. And, with this one, the color matches the archive box I use, and I don't feel it's unreasonable to want it kept that way. --Sable232 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 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).

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 no consensus. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-3rr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Uw-ew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Uw-3rr with Template:Uw-ew.
These two templates are very similar and appear to be intended for the same purpose. There's no need for two separate templates. Edit: I've just noticed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_7#Template:Uw-ew, but I'd like to point out that three reverts isn't a right, and that one can stil be blocked for edit warring even if 3RR is not violated. I'm not convinced there's enough difference to warrant separate templates. Adam9007 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Here we go again. --Bsherr (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bsherr, Yeah, I probably wouldn't have nominated had I been aware that there was one just four months ago. Adam9007 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Template:Uw-ew per nom. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and WP:CONSOLIDATE. The differences pointed out in the previous nom are too minor to warrant a separate template. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Template:Uw-ew: way too similar. No need for a 3rr-specific variant. 3RR isn't even the focus of the 3RR variant (only appears in second para, and it even says that 3RR doesn't need to be met for blocks). 3RR can be mentioned in the EW one in a similar same manner, and should be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Notified Twinkle users of the discussion here. Techie3 (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging participants from the discussion 4-5 months ago: @LaundryPizza03, Mdaniels5757, Callanecc, Thryduulf, Bsherr, and Forbes72: ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What about Template:Uw-ewsoft and Template:Uw-3rr-alt? --Bsherr (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• very strong oppose per the consensus of the last discussion, since when nothing has changed. 3rr violations and edit warring are not the same thing, and the correct solution to any problem with these templates appearing superficially similar is to change the wording of the templates so they are more distinct. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge 3RR is always an instance of edit warring, and edit warring is usually acted upon only after 3RR is broken. That's why I nominated it last time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As many have pointed out, it's clear the current wording of the two templates is similar. However, they are intended for different situations. Specifically: 3RR is the bright line rule with a narrow definition, an edit war encompasses a broader pattern of behavior with a more subjective definition. As I said in the last discussion, I am strongly in favor of adjusting the wording of the 3RR template to reflect the intended uses of the templates. Given that the intended use of the templates is for editors who are unfamiliar with details of the rules, if a user has violated a clear rule, it's especially useful to have a template specifically pointing to the issue, rather than the broader "edit war" policy. Part of the problem is probably the wording on WP:EDITWAR, which doesn't explain the difference between the templates. As Bsherr mentions, there's actually a few other similar templates, which seem to me to have even stronger arguments for merging. Is there a broader justification for why the Uw-ewsoft template is distinct, but 3RR is not, or is this proposal just based on the similarity of the current wording? ${\displaystyle \langle }$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk ${\displaystyle \rangle }$ 23:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also notifed Redwarn Users of the discussion here. Techie3 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As stated, they may be similar but they are not the same. Sportzpikachu (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They do different things. A 3RR warning is more aggressive and implies action being taken (i.e. I give people these if I am reporting them to WP:AN3). A simple edit warring template can be, and should be, used in different situations (like if someone has done one or two reverts with language that implies they clearly intend to keep going). In fact, I'd say that the edit war warning template should have less harsh language and a less red icon on it. Perhaps they could be ((uw-ew1)) and ((uw-ew2)). jp×g 05:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Realistically when editors edit war past 3RR they usually are not thinking clearly per WP:COOLDOWN. My opinion is merge as we have the template Template:Uw-ewblock, it should be clear what the rules are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose They are not the same thing. The ew template is for warning of and edit war, and the 3rr template is for warning of an WP:3RR violation. User3749 (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Edit warring is a different thing to 3RR. For example, I would use uw-ew if the warring is occurring over multiple articles or over a longer time period and uw-3rr if the 3RR rule has been or is about to be broken. I also see a use for uw-ew as a gentler version than uw-3rr for situations that aren't as serious or immediate, which is especially important now that Template:Uw-ewsoft has been deleted. I think the fact that both are commonly used suggests that they both have a purpose. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this turned out to be a textbook case on good use of relisting rather than closing what appeared to be a 'strong consensus'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It will be easy enough to come up with some wording that addresses both scenarios. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need, or benefit, to one template doing two different jobs. It will inevitably do a poorer job at both, which is really not going to benefit the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. But we currently have two templates doing one job. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except we don't. Per the comments in this discussion by people who actually use these templates we have two templates that do two different jobs. Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep distinct, and usefully so. An editor might need to be informed of both "violations" - the distinction is important. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep 2 different situations.--Moxy 🍁 14:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete for ((Uw-3rr)). You wouldn't use ((Uw-3rr)) unless there's a problem, right? Otherwise it'd just be stirring up trouble over a technical violation. The only plausible problem there could be about 3RR would be edit-warring, and that's already got a warning for it. There is a slight difference between the theoretical basis of these templates (although I think that the actual content is duplicative), however we specifically don't want to use ((Uw-3rr)) (or ((Uw-ew))) in a place where ((Uw-ew)) could not also be used. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about this: Just keep those two templates, and create a new template called uw-3ew (create) which says "you appear to be engaged in a edit war which is in violation of the three revert rule..." as this would solve the issue where some people think those two templates do the same thing and they can use the new template, and people who think those two templates do different things can still use those like before. User3749 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 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).