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 keep. Given the complexity of (and unanimous support for) the template, an exception can be made to the general guidelines. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:NPVIC chart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single-use template; should be merged with the article Pppery 21:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Basically, request exception. I acknowledge that single use templates are generally discouraged. This template, and its sub-templates, were created to replace a static image. Editable charts are generally preferred to images where possible, especially when they require periodic updating, as this one does; however, none of the existing chart templates had the required functionality. The complexity of these templates, the large and varying number of calls involved, and the necessity of having documentation available for their use, make it extremely impractical, and maybe impossible, to merge them into the article, and sub-pages are not an option in mainspace. I'm open to any suggestion that will preserve the functionality and user-friendliness afforded by these templates and their documentation, but if one cannot be found, I ask the nominator and other commenters to consider the relative harm of these templates against whatever alternative is on the table. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is serving a useful purpose Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per swpb, it is better than any alternative. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:45, 29 September 2017 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Most populous cities in the Republic of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of ((Largest cities of India)) but with two images changed. Jc86035 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obvious duplicate. Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 23#Template:Most populous cities in the Republic of India. DrKay (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT since author doesn't get the hint and keeps violating WP:CWW.--Muhandes (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete don't need two versions Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @DrKay, Muhandes, and Legacypac: The nominated template has been edited to use statistics for the cities' metropolitan areas rather than for the cities proper, so no longer actually a duplicate. The template is still unused, however. Jc86035 (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets remember this is not a nav template. The purpose of City population templates, is Urban area and the Category:Demographics of X articles (Demographics of India in this case). There was an attempt to use it as nav template, but consensus is against it (((Million-plus agglomerations in India)) in its latest incarnation is more appropriate for that). As such, I don't see a situation where both the nominated template and ((Largest cities of India)) will be used, and in all situations the latter will be preferable. Thus, while not a complete duplicate, the nominated template is redundant. --Muhandes (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2017 (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. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Mr. Robot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too early, not enough links, season articles are (now) redirects. -- Alex^TW 13:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needed. Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2017 (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).