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 speedy keep. Withdrawing in favor of discussion at WT:UTM. (non-admin closure) Bsherr (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Uw-attack (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

When used as a notice before or warning after a speedy deletion, it is redundant with Template:Db-attack-notice and Template:Db-attack-deleted, respectively. When used otherwise, it is redundant with the "uw-defamatoryX" series of templates. A redirect is impracticable because of the ambiguity of which template should be the target. Bsherr (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While I get where you are coming from I don't agree that it is redundant with the "uw-defamatoryX" series. Uw-defamatory specifically warns for defamatory content while uw-attack covers an similair but different area and also carries an much more direct and in your face warning Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 17:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What distinguishes an "attack" and "defamation"? Can you provide a link to the basis in the guidelines? When should this template be used instead of, shall we say, uw-defamatory3 or -4? --Bsherr (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "I hate X's music, I think they are terrible" (I'm intentionally being mild) is an attack, but is not defamatory. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, but the only thing that separates that from defamation is its limitation as a first person opinion. Doesn't Template:Uw-nor3 cover that? "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing." --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If Uw-norX is inadequate, however, wouldn't it make sense just to broaden the uw-defamatoryX series to cover both an "attack" generally and defamation specifically? --Bsherr (talk) 04:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And then an alternative. The template was originally created as a user warning to be used for attack pages for which there is no action via speedy deletion. It was only broadened to "pages and content" later. If we restore its use to just attack pages, that would be sufficiently supported by the guideline links currently contained in the template. If it applies to content too, we really need to link to relevant policies and guidelines, and I think there is a risk of overbreadth and redundancy, as explained above. --Bsherr (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Asartea ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 03:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion per Asartea. A change of scope might be reasonable, but is better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace. BilCat (talk) 05:47, 22 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).