Thread:CzechOut/@comment-46120114-20201221062816/@comment-188432-20210113201450

Again, you're asking for broad definitions where none are possible. Would Superman on the I Love Lucy Wiki be vandalism? No, cause there was an episode that featured Superman. Would Superman on the Lord of the Rings Wiki be considered vandalism. I don't think so. I'd call it "inappropriate" at best — but even then, there may have been some parody featuring a crossover that could be considered marginally relevant.

On a straight up, encyclopaedic wiki about Primeval, is it possible Jurassic Park dinosaurs might be inappropriate? Maybe. But if the wiki were about Fanon, the case would be less clear. Fanon wikis, by definition, live in very grey areas, and I think the most you could say is that you don't personally like someone else's view of the topic.

Real vandalism involves things that violate Fandom's Terms of Use — pornography, hate speech, personal attacks, and the like. Just remember that vandalism is a highly-charged word, and it's a bit lazy. Best not to use it too often, and instead be very specific about what you find problematic.