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 delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Final (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I see no use for it and on the two articles it was added it has been removed, so it is not currently used. Tried to open discussion with creator at their talkpage to find out the idea behind it, but no response. Qed237 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not seeing a good use case for this template that can't be handled without a template. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnecessary, I was planning on deleting as well. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2016 (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 delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ocean Girl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only links two articles. Not enough to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• With a possibility for a third article, it seems... still not useful and fails the soft WP:NENAN threshold. Delete. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Two articles is not enough for navigational purpose. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:15, 19 July 2016 (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 delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Major US Cities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fails WP:TG point 6 (See List of United States cities by population) as well as WP:NAVBOX #1, 2, 3, and 5. Per the previous policies, this topic is better served by an already-existing list than by an overloaded template. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 05:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I care one way or another. Based on prior talk page discussion, I'll offer a suggestion. You could shorten it by grouping only by region, eliminating the by-state groupings. Also limiting it to current cities over 100,000. The template I currently see gives me some insight about historical population/migration trends, but obviously there's far better venues to present that information than in a navbox. Also renaming it to match the other templates in Category:United States city rankings by population templates. There's a possiblity of it being useful by that point, even though it's still linking a large number of articles and I wouldn't necessarily argue with anyone who has already pointed out that this linking is perhaps indiscriminate. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any future variant of the template should probably be based on another of the templates in the category. TG#6 is often a dubious nomination criterion for this kind of template, but the NAVBOX references are sufficient here. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom / WP:NAVBOX. However, I could also live with reducing the scope to around 34 cities with 500,000+ pop and keeping the heading link to the "featured list" article List of United States cities by population. 300+ cities and including former 100,000+ cities is pretty much useless. I doubt anyone reading an article about Kenosha, WI would feel the need to sift through the 300+ cities in the template and click on Canton, OH. Both are included in this list, but neither are still above 100,000 and have little else in common. Maybe better as a category? When the bot deletes it swap it for a category? --Dual Freq (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reformat – This template is informative and does no harm, however it is indeed a bit too large for comfort. I would support the suggestion of removing the subdivisions by state, and perhaps listing cities in the form "Henderson, NV" to still give a clue to readers about relative frequency of large cities in each state. Remove formerly-large cities too. — JFG ^talk 21:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it would look. — JFG ^talk 22:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and add links to the list article. a list article and/or category is the way to do this, not a big navbox in articles which already have too many navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I could see reformatting, but I'm leaning more towards deletion simply to better use article real-estate —PC-XT+ 19:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - should either be a "list" article or a section of some article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (reluctantly). I see the usefulness of a navbox like this, for truly major cities (per Dual Freq). It seems natural to link to other major cities for the reader's comparative purposes. Making the user link to a list page doesn't assist such comparative navigation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:21, 24 July 2016 (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 Delete. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Skellefteå AIK seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't link to anything. No useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2016 (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Luleå HF seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't link to anything. No useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2016 (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 delete. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Linköpings HC seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't link to anything. No useful navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2016 (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 delete. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Armenian Bread (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links in the template. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2016 (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).