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 page.
The result of the debate was : no consensus for deletion, but there was a consensus for a major cleanup and a resultant rename to take place. Martinp23 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy against red links. The template itself refers to WP:CONTEXT, which is a policy against irrelevant links - regardless of their color. This template should be either deleted or renamed to something like {{Context0}} and reworded so it fits the policy. — Sebastian(talk) 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So should it be deleted or renamed? Those are two different things and it seems you're not clear on what you want done with it so why nominate it for deletion? There is a policy against irrelevant links, which is what this template more or less addresses. I'm also not aware of any kind of naming policy required for templates, as there are comment templates like "Template:Notyours(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which isn't called Hello, I'm Crossmr. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. .I choose redlink because it was descriptive of what the template was to address. If you think it should be reworded to reflect a clearer message, you could be WP:BOLD and reword it.--Crossmr 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I apologize if it is not customary to nominate a template here unless one is uncompromisingly for deletion. If you ask me, I prefer deletion. I see no use in renaming+rewriting, since I don't use this template anyway. (When I find out-of context links I just remove them and I personally never found a need to write to whoever created them; at least not in standard cases.) But maybe others do, in which case I'm fine with renaming and rewriting.
So if I have to choose for one or the other, then deletion it is. That also would keep the discussion of how it should be renamed out of this page. We always can recreate it with different words and under a different name. — Sebastian(talk) 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of templates I don't use, but I don't nominate them for deletion. Nominating something for deletion is to be used in the case where something has no merit at all. It has as much merit in addressing the policy it does than any other template which addresses any other policy.--Crossmr 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for nomination was not the fact that I don't use it. Maybe I wasn't clear enough: As it is, the name "Redlink" (along with the wording, which has been improved since) is bound to mislead people into using it against redlinks, which is not Wikipedia policy. Therefore I argue that the name and the mention of redlinks in the template has to go. — Sebastian(talk) 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've fixed the template to at least roughly correspond with the policy it cites, but disagree that it should exist - redlinks are entirely appropriate if an appropriate article simply doesn't exist *yet*. Chastising someone for daring to create red links unlessthey are doing it completely inappropriately seems an over-reaction. Possibly original author thought that Wikipedia was not supposed to contain redlinks? --Stoive 03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author, and it was created because I found several users (and spent many weeks cleaning up their mess) who were over-linking articles, and linking unnecessary things which added nothing to the articles at all. The template was never used just because someone created a link to a non-existent article. Its to be used in the situation where someone had a chronic habit of creating unnecessary links. Just because you or someone else hasn't encountered people like that doesn't mean those people aren't out there. I encountered enough to eventually create a template. Wikipedia is a big place.--Crossmr 05:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that the name "Redlink" does not fit? — Sebastian(talk) 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the name's inappropriate, but it should probably be kept as a redirect for historical reasons; the redir can always be {{rfd-t}}'d later if needed. --ais523 09:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
How is this page in any way referring to "overlinking?" See the last discussion and why this template was previously deleted as inappropriate.Ansell 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and rename. Bad wording as it is, but salvageable. -Amarkovblahedits 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or change to the point of unrecognizability. As it is, it's just a bad guideline. -Toptomcat 01:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many of the arguments at this discussion. Meaning - redlinks aren't that big a problem, unless the user is being disruptive about it, or obviously didn't bother searching for a good alternative link. riana_dzasta 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and rename since it does theoretically serve a purpose as a reminder of policy, its just that what that policy is needs to be clarified. TewfikTalk 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an appropriate warning. There is no policy, and IMO should never be a policy, against wikilinking to possible new articles. I have de ja vu about this discussion... Ansell 10:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or rename/fix. I was encouraged to speedy close with G4, as this template seems very similar to the {{redlinks}} template deleted following this discussion. However, the other template was more along the lines of a {{cleanup}} tag, where this one is more of a user talk notice like {{test0}}. With that in mind, I think this avoids a speedy closure. That said, though, I think this is the same spirit of template, and I'd really rather have a generic template for "overlinking" suchasthissortofthing, which could be useful for either purpose. Thoughts? Luna Santin 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea, methinks. riana_dzasta 11:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is overlinking an issue which is worth having a standard template for. If it is a minor problem then not having a template will force people to think before "warning" others for it. Either way, this template does not fulfill that function and a totally new template should be devised for that purpose. Overlinking generally seems to link to non-redlink articles strangely... Ansell 11:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Overlinking is an issue that I've encountered on more than one occassion. The worst was when I found someone who'd spent about 2 months quietly overlinking dozens of articles. It took me about as long to finally clean them up. How spread of an issue it is, I've no idea. Changing this to a generic over-linking and not just redlink template is fine with me.--Crossmr 15:19, 27 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was subst and deleteMartinp23 18:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure if it's appropriate to have templates with such limited scope (only 2 or 3 pages), especially if it's only calling existing infobox templates. Also, they may make it difficult for anon editors to fix info on them because they exist in templatespace and not mainspace. Axem Titanium 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
subst: and Delete, misuse of templates. --humblefool® 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Place on respective pages and Delete... per nom. Cbrown1023 03:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
subst: and Delete, especially External links. TewfikTalk 19:39, 24 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was keepMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Idea of this seems to be to spread links to unencyclopedic images, and a link to a wikipedia user page, highly inappropriate for articles. --Martin 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Wikiproject that some folks are setting up, where a cartoonist user has been illustrating some articles for us. Keep, and if you have a problem with the idea as a whole, take it up with them. --humblefool® 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'd prefer it if the link to userspace was on the Talk page. --ais523 10:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This template is being used on articles, if it was being used on talk pages or something I wouldn't care, but that is not its purpose. If a cartoonist wants to illustrate articles then fine, but a template to spam them around is totally unacceptable. Martin 10:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of the cartoonist creating the illustrations, if no one gets to see them? -- Zanimum 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no OWNing please. Maybe just remove the "by {{{2}}}". -Amarkovblahedits 19:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the offending part, so changed to Keep. An MfD for the entire project is appropriate if your issue is with the images. -Amarkovblahedits 01:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any location for a discussion about this entire matter? The Wikipedia illustrations have been generating heat, but without a place to talk things through the best we can do is fling around accusations and defenses and raise a few blood pressures. I'd quite like to found and oversee one, but #¤%& it, I'd also quite like to pass some upcoming exams. --Kizor 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That project is about illustrating articles, this template is about spamming cartoons onto articles. I'll say again, it is totally innapproriate for it to be used on articles. Martin 10:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Cbrown1023 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They act as engaging summaries of the articles, for those wanting to skip or review the lengthy format of our full-text content. -- Zanimum 14:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think the template should be changed to a talk page banner and moved to the talk pages. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many people look at the talk pages? Really, only contributors to Wikipedia, "I love you Britney" fans, and people trying to find a dispute for a news story do. -- Zanimum 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this whole thing could have been avoided if anybody had bothered to actually ask me, the creator of the template. I would have directed them to User:Danny at whose behest I created it, and it would have spurred me to actually create WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia which various off-wiki business has impeded. More details later. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is pretty darn close to an Official Project, if it isn't actually already so. Note that the cartoonist is using the Wikipedia logo in their illustrations... Why is that? Because either they're way off the mark, or they have Board Permission for it... (1 guess as to which it is...) So trying to remove templates that facilitate this project seems a bit off to me. Perhaps the nom didn't know this but this is, in my view Speedy closable under IAR. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think formal logo usage permission has been given, however Danny, Anthere, and Angela (though she's not board anymore) have all commented on them on [1]. Also, I found out about them from Andrew Lih's blog, Andrew's pretty tight knit with the foundation. -- Zanimum 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Andrew's comments to the blog... "As for the trademark, Brad Patrick the Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel has engaged with conversations with the creator, so it appears they have worked something out. You may want to contact him directly though." -- Zanimum 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a self reference and should be on a talk page or, preferably, not here at all. I agree entirely with Martin on this. --kingboyk 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure how the images are "unencyclopedic" considering they are taking facts from our articles (that would make our encyclopedia articles unencyclopedic... :) ) The project should have a Wikipeda:WikiProject page though if you are worried about the link to User space. Ansell 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment You all did notice the Wikipedia Logo on the cartoons right? This is about as Official of a Project as they get. I pointed that out before and I'm at a loss why anyone is still suggesting delete. Move around appropriately, sure. Create a different template or a project, sure. but Delete??? Please don't drive away a talented contributor who is helping out WP in a novel way. I have to wonder, though, is there anything behind this nom that is not apparent? ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just condescending. Maybe they think that adding pictures is a bad idea? -Amarkovblahedits 14:39, 29 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not used at all, the three pages it linked to have been merged since, it's now redundant. --Trampikey(talk to me)(contribs) 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:07, 23 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
No more reason, please read why previous one was deleted, only World Cup and CURRENT club TP should be used. A notable players would play more than three "A" event, but no need to create tp for all, it is useless. --Matthew_hktc 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hktc 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per consensus. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all EXCEPT ONE (or maybe a few) - Denmark 1992 Squad.. Let's not overlook the fact that Denmark were the Euro champions that year, and I think that we should make an exception for squad templates for the winners of these said competitions, since they can provide a good insight into the era.. If there are any other templates above that regroup the squad of winners of these competitions, they should be spared too.. Baristarim 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep use the hide/show function and leave in the pages. Is useful for crosslinking player articles.--Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Cbrown1023 03:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all apart from Denmark Euro 1992 - per Baristarim. HornetMike 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Denmark Euro 92 per others. – Elisson • T • C • 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why deleting Template:Turkey Squad Euro 2000 ??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.141.71 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2006
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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. Cbrown1023 03:09, 23 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan template. Removed from the only article it was in as it doesn't add much and is difficult to read. Not to mention scrolls at lower resolutions. Francis Tyers· 09:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.MustTC 12:00, 23 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
There's no reason to advertise the vulnerability of an article to vandalism, thereby encouraging readers to vandalize it. The rationale for the deletion of this template is discussed in general terms in WP:BEANS. Indeed, to avoid encouraging vandalism to vulnerable pages, only administrators can view Special:Unwatchedpages, a page which performs essentially the same function as Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism, into which this template classifies articles. John254 03:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee... there's so many problems with this template on so many levels, but I'll focus on one: Who decides what the cutoff for "vulnerable" is? Delete. Titoxd(?!?) 04:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BEANS. Besides, this could be applied to every unprotected article on Wikipedia. And it's ugly. :) --Xtifrtälk 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in actual use anywhere in the mainspace (the only mainspace article where I found it at all was Orange roughy where it was mistakenly used to refer to the fish as a vulnerable species, not the article itself). --Metropolitan90 08:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
G7 and associated cat. I created this in good-faith, but I want it becoming an animal conservation template, etc. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:52, 21 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Christalk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Christalk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could suggest this at the village pump (or on the approriate wikiproject)? Martinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was delete - due to the lack of use, and the previously deleted template, I'm deleting (and also, Jeu de Paume does not seem to be the smae as tennis) Martinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wasn't there another TfD about this a week ago? In any case, I don't understand where the name of template is coming from: No, it was not competed at a single Olympics, the devil is in the details :)). It has been competed in every single Olympics ever since: "Jeu de paume" is old French for tennis, it literally means "the game of the palm" :)) I don't know the exact details of how or why this would have been introduced as a "seperate" sport, but it might be that at one point in the early history of Olympics, the French word was used instead of tennis, since IOC has both English and French as official languages. So you might as well merge it to relevant tennis templates, "Jeu de paume" was not a different sport, it was an earlier version of modern tennis, that's all.. Yes, human linguistic history is weird :))) Baristarim 20:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last week's TfD was for {{Olympic Games Jeu de paume}} (lower case 'p'). They should both go! As for the meaning, the IOC results show it as a distinct sport from tennis at the 1908 Games. There were competitions in both. See real tennis for details. Andrwsc 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge with real tennis template as there was a comp in 1924, then delete. --Bob 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Christalk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (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 page.
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 page.
The result of the debate was deleteMartinp23 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intended to be a navigation box, in the same style as all other Olympic sports, but this sport was only competed at a single Olympic Games, so there is no need to "navigate" anywhere. Currently unused. Andrwsc 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a navigation box, and therefore useless. Punkmorten 18:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW --Bob 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom †he Bread 23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single link navbox. Christalk back 01:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (just one link in a nav box?). Cbrown1023 03:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: merge all these into one navigation template for "sports which only featured at one Olympic Games". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:03, 29 November 2006 (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 page.
Hello, I'm Crossmr. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. .I choose redlink because it was descriptive of what the template was to address. If you think it should be reworded to reflect a clearer message, you could be WP:BOLD and reword it.--Crossmr 00:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
