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 delete and listify. To keep the history intact for GFDL reasons, I'm going to histmerge the template into the new list. Waiting for a response from the listifier. delldot ∇. 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western European & American Paintings (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Listify, too coxplex for a template, can't add more references in small area, needs explanation of geographical scope (is Russia is Western Europe now, why aren't Australia and Canada part of this list as they come from the same Western Art tradition). --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify – I've made a start in my sandbox. I also suggest simplifying the scope so that it lists major art museums around the globe by collection size. The restriction to the medium of painting makes it harder to find data and the definition of 'Western Europe' is, as noted above, slippery. Ham 18:58, 10 September 2008 (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 section.

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 Delete all. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Unused templates in main template space that appear to be more of sandbox attempts than anything else. Editor who created them has not touched them or any other article since the beginning of July. Djsasso (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "Unused templates in main template space that appear to be more of sandbox attempts than anything else." The templates seem to contain important information, so I would not object to userfying the information. I listed this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey to get their feed back. -- -- Suntag ☼ 17:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Project had already been notified, as we (WP:HOCKEY) keep a list of all types of deletion discussions, but I do appreciate you help. Howeve, I am not really sure which important information you are speaking of. Perhaps the colour codes? If thats the case its not that big a deal to lose as we already have those codes in use on most team pages. -Djsasso (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Djsasso is from WP:HOCKEY and the colour codes are already listed elsewhere, I have no objection to deletion. -- Suntag ☼ 19:58, 13 September 2008 (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 section.

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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Senators of the 108th Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Not really useful. Some Senators serve in so many Congresses that it would be extremely unwieldy to have one of these for each Congress in which, e.g., Ted Kennedy served. —Markles 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As noted, making full use of this template series would cause tremendous template clutter at the bottom of articles. This type of information should be contained in a list; see 108th United States Congress#Members. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and following two. The only place this would be really useful is at 109th United States Congress where an equivalent exists in-text here. If this were a listing of current Senators it would be a different story, but Black Falcon makes the good point that it is impractical to have at template for each individual Congress. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:09, 15 September 2008 (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 section.

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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Senators of the 109th Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely used. Not really useful. Some Senators serve in so many Congresses that it would be extremely unwieldy to have one of these for each Congress in which, e.g., Ted Stevens served. See last year's TFD discussion (result: "Keep") here.—Markles 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As noted, making full use of this template series would cause tremendous template clutter at the bottom of articles. This type of information should be contained in a list; see 109th United States Congress#Members. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (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 section.

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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Senators of the 110th Congress (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely used. Not really useful. Some Senators serve in so many Congresses that it would be extremely unwieldy to have one of these for each Congress in which, e.g., Robert Byrd served. See last year's TFD discussion (result: "Keep") here.—Markles 18:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. As noted, making full use of this template series would cause tremendous template clutter at the bottom of articles. This type of information should be contained in a list; see 110th United States Congress#Members. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (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 section.

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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fictional rail start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Needless template. Currently used in one article (Places in Harry Potter), providing a link that already exists in the text immediately preceding it. No real use for this template, as it would only be relevant where the supposed railway line plays a major role in the heart of its fictional work, and in such cases the information would generally be gathered into one article and organized better anyway. It is worth noting that the articles on The Railway Series, which would appear to be a good candidate, are already structured such that this would be unnecessary. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Underused template, can be better served by a different, out-of-universe rejiggering that I can't think of right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes: "succession boxes ... should not be used to describe in-universe relationships in articles about fictional entities [because s]uccession boxes assume continuity, which may not exist". –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (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 section.