Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 4

< January 3	January 5 >

January 4

Template:RadioShack riders

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RadioShack riders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per here. Just like Agritubel in that discussion, Team RadioShack is now a defunct cycling team, and in that regards, the template is now redundant. Craig (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no longer needed and unused. Severo^TC 14:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete since it's now defunct. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vandalism-high-risk

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vandalism-high-risk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't need to put a big flag on an article announcing that it is at a high risk of vandalism. In addition to being a BEANS violation, it is unlikely to have any real effect. Anyway, if an article is at that level of vandalism, it should just be protected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — borderline CSD T2 as a misrepresentation of policy (Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles). --slakr^\ talk / 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as T2 Bulwersator (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More people are likely to spot vandalism in its tracks and delete it if there is a note on it announcing that it is at a risk. Even if something is protected, then it is still possible to have vandalism on it. Here is an example of the template inspect:

{{Vandalism-high-risk}}

Rubinkumar^Talk 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is kept, it should be a talk page template, like the hightraffic template is. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What next? Template:COI-high-risk, Template:Editwar-high-risk? Sorry but this template is a giant mistake. NUKE! Bulwersator (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more unnecessary clutter, but I've declined the T2 (though I accept it's borderline). An optimist on the run! 08:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The author has since created another version at {{Talk Page Notify}}, which I have also nominated for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I made another template for talk pages because of the comment by the IP address 76.65.128.132 above (quoting directly

"Comment if this is kept, it should be a talk page template, like the hightraffic template is. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)").[reply]
I made this in response to that comment. If that one is kept, I think this should be deleted. Rubinkumar^Talk 21:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP wasn't saying that there should be such a template (and I do not agree with adding a banner to the talk page of an article indicating that it might be vandalized); rather, he was saying that if consensus is to keep, it should be off kept article pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the sentiment (advice to readers to be aware of possible vandalism, and undo it if found) is quite fine, the look and feel is alarming (not good considering WP:ASTONISH), and it totally flies in the face of WP:AGF. If an editor knows that a page is at hight risk, the responsible thing to do is to add it to their watchlist. fredgandt 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fred Gandt. For those areas with particularly high chances of vandalism, there are templates/parameters such as {{Active politician}}, which also exists as {{WPBiography}}'s |activepol=. A general one really isn't needed, though, and especially not on an article page. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note-- This should be a template placed on talk pages of articles, so it is not as much of a Wikipedia:Beans violation. If this should be deleted, so should Template:Active politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubinkumar (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transclude on every talkpage at enwp!. mabdul 12:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: seriously: delete!
Delete per WP:BEANS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such a big banner will only attract and tempt more vandals instead of being helpful to editors. De728631 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:University of Da Nang

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University of Da Nang (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox; all but two links are red. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, these are already well connected now by a see also section and prose. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Promo shot 1978. Photo:Al Walter

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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was now deleted as a test page. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promo shot 1978. Photo:Al Walter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template created in a mistaken attempt to provide information for File:Dumb blondes 008.jpg. —teb728 t c 07:20, 4 January 2012 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.