Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

October 2

Template:Timeline History of Chess

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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline History of Chess (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete: Template is unused in any article, visually confusing (at least from this PC, with these settings), has not been edited since 12/21/2007, and is listed here: Wikipedia:Bad links/encoded and here: User:RussBot/Orphaned templates/024 EmanWilm (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks a mess on my screen, also unused. PC78 (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could become a wonderful article that puts a plethora of information in an easily accessible format. The somewhat messed up layout can be fixed fine. It's a pity that we've started contemplating throwing good stuff out of the windo, due to either bearocratic regulations or personal disliking. Keep, but change around a bit. Why does it have to be deleted when it can be fixed? Beacuse we're lazy? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused, abandoned and broken. In response to Aditya, History of chess and Timeline of chess are existing articles, not something we need to create. This is a template that was formerly used in Timeline of chess, but was removed in December 2006 because it was "garbled". The entries on the template appear to be reflected in the text of the article, but if you find anything missing feel free to add it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI It looks a mess since EasyTimeline switched to a proportional font which makes links misalign. As author of EasyTimeline I regret his change was made without consultation and without any regard for downward compatibility. But frankly I have not had time to look into EasyTimeline for years now, and to fix this. Maybe I should ask someone to adopt the project and do long delayed maintenance. Here is how the chart looked before it got broken [1] Erik Zachte (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if requested and delete as unused and excessive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (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:Unappreciated

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 userfy (single use template). –xeno^talk 13:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unappreciated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

An odd template which doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Crafty (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems a rather bad-faith/complaining template. (The documentation is particularly bizarre - it threatens that editors who mistakenly add it to their user page will get blocked!) Editors shouldn't be demanding praise for their edits; if they want feedback, well, we have WP:Editor review for that. Robofish (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Meets the inclusion category, and it's a well-intentioned idea, but I just can't see it working well in practice. If you self-add it, it's whiney. If you were tempted to add it to an unappreciated editor, why not just appreciate them instead?

It'll all end in tears. Best rid of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whiney. It's unfortunate if some editors aren't feeling the love, but if you have to ask people for praise then it may not be deserved and won't really be genuine when it comes. A more objective assessment of one's contributions can be requested at WP:ER. PC78 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – we could just bombard the single user (User:Porchcrop) with barnstars and thus render the template unused. Occuli (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single-use templates like this can usually be boldly userfied and db-g6 the leftover redirect after bypassing it on the user's page. Doing this and speedily closing... –xeno^talk 13:02, 2 October 2009 (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.