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).
Unneeded documentation for redirected template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 23:26, 6 April 2018 (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).
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).
The result of the discussion was speedy delete but for slightly different reasons from what Devopam gave. —
RHaworth (
talk·contribs) 18:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
It is a redirect to the correctly spelled 'O' (capitalized).
Devopam (
talk) 11:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
normally, I would say "go discuss it at RFD", but looking at the template history, I say speedy delete per author request.
Frietjes (
talk) 12:37, 6 April 2018 (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).
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).
Contains single entry, defeating the very purpose. Not linked from
Devopam (
talk) 11:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Not enough links.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 01:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete As per nomination and above.
VasuVR (
talk,
contribs) 02:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. One list entry does not deserve a template.
Ajf773 (
talk) 08:32, 13 April 2018 (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).
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).
Delete both - as there is never a reason to use a navbox with only one entry. Claiming it will get more populated in the future is
WP:CRYSTALBALLing. And if it does, simply remake the navbox once it has around five or more entries. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – @
Dissident93: Not crystallballing as i have given a reference for the upcoming follow-up event in the next Winter Olympics in 2022 in Beijing. Best regards
Migrant (
talk) 03:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Still changes nothing, as this will only have a single entry until 2022. Just recreate it when it's time. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 05:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, it has for the time being 4 outgoing article-links and it is transcluded at 2 articlepages, for now, until the article for the upcoming event article are created. The upcoming event-article can of course be created from and with the reference I have already given above. Best regards
Migrant (
talk) 14:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both. Not enough links at present to warrant a navbox. --
woodensuperman 08:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – @
Woodensuperman: There are by the way 4 outgoing links for the time being from the template (template-header links to a list of speed skating olympic winners, Speed skating event with results, The winners of the event, and nation at the olympics-article for the winner). Best regards
Migrant (
talk) 04:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
We shouldn't be linking to the "nation at the olympics" article. --
woodensuperman 15:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)reply
delete both, we can recreate it in 4 years if the event happens again.
Frietjes (
talk) 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment – @
Frietjes: It is scheduled to happen again se my reference above in my keep-vote above. Best regards
Migrant (
talk) 14:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete all, doesn't provide sufficient navigation to be useful.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 18:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete both I suppose I'm "involved" since I voted on the last one, but there's no reason why these need to sit around under-navigating for 3-4 years until the next Games. Refunds and recreations are easy.
Primefac (
talk) 18:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Because a navbox that does not effectively navigate is rather pointless. I'm guessing that there are people who will find the 1924 template to be useless as well.
Primefac (
talk) 23:38, 17 April 2018 (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).
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).
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).