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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
redundant to {{Fiba player}} with |df=y (see here), no harm in keeping a redirect after replacement since it would still render correctly, just with month first, instead of day first in the birth date. Frietjes (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2013 (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.
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 merge historyPlastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (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.
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.
Only four links one of which is already at afd. Not everything needs a navbox. Fenix down (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete, the navigation is already handled by the infobox previous/next links. Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Template is single use as it incorporates special colors, images and formatting in the caption and fields, etc. which can easily be messed up by an inexperienced editor as it conceals and keeps a lot of mark up off the page. Unless there is a particular policy violation or the template is causing some sort of problem for someone I see no reason for its deletion. -- Gwillhickers 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of reasons I just mentioned above. No one has actually pointed at any real problems here. -- Gwillhickers 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom? What exactly are you objecting to? Just wondering why some people spend their time chasing after things that aren't violating policy or causing anyone problems.-- Gwillhickers 13:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete after replacing with template:Infobox military person (i.e., substitute and delete after removing the <div>...</div> tags). no one has indicated why this person is so special that he needs a specially colored infobox. we should strive for consistency across articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The grey background was added to better display the white flag (right) which is difficult to distinguish with a white background. I know of no WP:policy that says only biographies of very famous people are allowed to employ color in the the info box. While we always strive for a certain level of consistency in WP articles we must realize there is no 'one-size-suits-all' approach, there are examples everywhere and trying to police all the articles in such a fashion is peckish and often leads to resentment among fellow editors when someone with nothing better to do with their time pushes an issue over something where there are no WP policy violations and no one is being offended or otherwise given a problem. In any case, as the author of the template I'm going to nominate it for speedy deletion so I can get back and spend my valuable time writing and building nice articles for the readers, our number one priority, btw. -- Gwillhickers 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fixed the flag for you, which is why {{flagicon image}} adds the border by default. Frietjes (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tfd nominations for templates like this one are routine, I didn't expect such a strong reaction. Consistency between templates of the same kind is also important, and for military infoboxes there is a consensus that the general appearance should conform to Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style and WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "reaction" is over the idea that for every one writer there are ten others on a 'mission to clean up' and often hound editors, for issues (aside from fixing typos, spelling, redundant links, etc) that involve no WP policy violations and which are not causing problems for other editors. I have seen too many writers, historians, people making valuable contributions, leave wikipedia because they are confronted over matters that should not even be an issue in the first place. I try to convey this message every opportunity I get in the hopes that people will think a little bit before they try to create an issue with someone. Before I ever bother a fellow editor I ask myself: Is there a policy violation? Is WP being abused? Is someone using WP to make a statement? Is any editor being offended or inconvenienced? If the answer is 'no' to all of these questions I move on. As I said, I nominated the template for speedy deletion, per author requests. -- Frietjes, thanks for presenting the 'border' feature for images. In all my years of editing that item has managed to elude me! -- Gwillhickers 21:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a similar habit: before I create a new template (of which there are already tens of thousands), I spend a little time to find out if there is already one that can do the job. Sorry if the TfD notice has bothered you, but the best way to not receive them is to avoid creating redundant templates.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat I guess. I simply used the existing template and concealed it within another. Anyway, I didn't see anything in Template:WPMILHIST Infobox style that had anything to say about the use of color, but if it's going to create issues to the point where someone is insisting I'll remove them also. -- Gwillhickers 21:30, 21 October 2013 (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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
Merge per previous nom --LT910001 (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous TFD....William 14:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This template can just be deleted - the relevant season summary article (2011 Formula One season) already contains the content. (The info was extracted into the template, but another editor reverted that change, so the template is now just not necessary at all). DH85868993 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2013 (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.
.svg)