• User:Underbar dk and I have disagreement over how the template should work and I think put them into the categories are definitely clearer to easy and read for the readers and I am here for consensus. Lmmnhn (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I will say for the record that under the WP:Bold, revert, discuss model, discussion is not needed for reversion after a bold edit. In fact, the norm is to have the person who wanted the initial bold edit to remain argue for its merits. Thus your edit summary "Discussion on Talk Page is necessary before revert someone's edit" is erroneous. I have stated my preference on the edit summaries, and I will wait for other people's inputs. _dk (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposed template is too bulky and too ugly. UU (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lmmnhn: The discussion is not an excuse for you to violate the 3RR rule just so you can revert several editors to the edition you prefer. You two can already be blocked. Back off. _dk (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• The template is so titled because it's about the movement and not the protests per se. I've now reverted it to a relatively uncluttered version without all the red groups and the road names etc. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 08:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gotten the idea why putting them into categories like almost every other templates would be a bad thing, regardless the discussion over whether the roads should be in template. Besides, the icons on the header of the template, I do not think it is necessary and consistent with other templates. Apology for my reverting as I miscounted the times I have reverted. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I had edited a version of the template after an edit war about a week ago since the edit kept being reverted without any contribution to the discussion for a consensus for the sake of the betterment of this particular template. I am requesting a third party's comment so that this deadlock can be solved with a constructive manner.Lmmnhn (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes we need a discussion, as now's not the time for more stealth reverts. I greatly appreciate what you do around WP, and I promise you it's not personal. It's not the categorisation that I take issue with – you will see that the current version is structured, but less obviously so. Here we have a simple template that I created for articles related to the Umbrella movement (and using a namespace that leaves no room for ambiguity), and each line of the template has links that differ in nature. Your efforts have transformed into a nav template for the protests including stuff that I see no point in having there, such as street names, names of Beijing officials. Also as a result, the link for the Umbrella Movement, which for me was central, got relegated to the very last line. That is the biggest problem. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My latest edited version has no street names in it and whether some names should be in the template and some not should not be in it should not be a big issue as it is open to changes. The big question is the format, which I know there are so-called different lines signifying different types but they are not well defined and categorized at all. I have a problem with this kind of uncategorized format (namely without different groups and lists), and also with the big-sized pictures on the header, which I do not find in another template on here. I do see we are having different thought on whether this template should just talk about the "Umbrella Movement" which is still a very vague idea that overlaps the 2014 Hong Kong protests and has not developed into its own specificity (that would have to wait until the following actions by the HKFS, Scholarism and other pro-democratic groups on the 2014 Hong Kong protests, whether it would still be a concrete and collective action considered the Umbrella Movement would be the next question be asked), I could easily make another template called "2014 Hong Kong protests" and includes the anti-Occupy groups and police and government officials and etc. in order to settle this time-consuming, for the most of the time one-sided "discussion" which leads to no end, but I do not wish to see people jumping out saying I am making a new template on the same thing. Lmmnhn (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• What exactly is the question for this RFC? AlbinoFerret 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• The bot brought me to this RfC and I have no idea what it's about. BlueSalix (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)