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 debate was Keep --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a category with the same name listing all the articles in the template. Köbra | Könverse 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's not quite correct - none of the articles in the top row of the template are included in Category:Skopje or its subcategories. Nor are the first two items in the second row (after which point I stopped checking). DH85868993 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but the point I am trying to make is that you do not need to have a bloated template when you can just use the category in each of those articles. Köbra | Könverse 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of links that seem to be relevant, seems reasonably useful for navigation. Mr.Z-man 04:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep totally agree with Mr.Z-man. Cukiger (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not sure why this template was even nominated for deletion, there are several other city templates just like it. --The Last King of Brush Park 20:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So have we decided to keep it? --The Last King of Brush Park 1:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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.