< August 29	August 31 >

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untranscluded template that can easily be written using HTML. We shouldn't have templates for every variation of a <span> tag. It's also incredibly annoying to a reader, regardless of where it's used. --MZMcBride 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I understand correctly, this is a template to make text blink. However, as pointed out by the nom, the template is unnecessary. Moreover, I think we ought to avoid unnecessary BFOs (Blinking, Flashing Objects) ... there was a discussion about this at the Village Pump a few weeks ago, where the concern was raised that excess blinking, flashing, and movement could cause seizures in some people. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Cheers,Je t Lover 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll grant that like other thinking humanoids, I find blink text incredibly annoying, but it's not doing any *harm*, and there might be rare situations where it could help. No reason to short-circuit them when the cost to keeping the template is so minor as to be trivial. SnowFire 00:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep precisely because blinking text is so bloody annoying; having a template makes it a little more likely someone will use it instead of HTML to format their blinking text, and then we can use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Blink to keep an eye on inappropriate uses and aggressively remove them. Of course, the likelyhood of that is kinda low, and personally I can't think of any instance when blinking text would be appropriate in the mainspace, so I don't really have any objection to deletion. cab 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're assuming that someone foolish enough to use blinking text would simultaneously be smart enough to find this template. I find that hard to believe. :) Xtifr _tälk 08:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and completely unnecessary. There is nothing to gain by keeping this template around for its "novelty". --Farix (Talk) 02:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary and also a bit per WP:BEANS. Keeping the template around may seduce people to use it in inappropriate places. Should blinking text actually be necessary anywhere anytime (though it's tough to imagine such a situation, however far-fetched) it can be made to blink using HTML. —AldeBaer 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unnecessary template. Sebi _[talk] 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as interface design that should in general not be encouraged. Such formatting is not really consistent with general accessibility guidelines. DGG (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was Snowball keep Circeus 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these templates are redundant to the Political divisions of the US template that is used on all states. Suffers from a bit of overcategorization.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the anime/manga character infobox cleanup, I came across these five templates that are currently unused. The the two Mankin character infoboxes are actually the same as Template:Shaman King characters, which has already been deleted in a previous TfD. All templates have been superseded by Template:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as they are unused. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused. Carlosguitar 23:48, 31 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. I first moved the history to Talk:Economy of Denmark/Template:Economy of Denmark table and mentioned this in the history of the article, so that the history is preserved for GFDL compliance. --ais523 16:57, 10 September 2007 (U T C)

Template not in use. It was used on the Economy of Denmark article only, and it is thus more appropriate just to copy the template code into that article, which I have already done. I recommend that this template be deleted. — Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 09:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, that is, to copy the template into the article.It gives a well-organised overview.Bornsommer 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, template is not used (thanks to Lilac Soul's copying). I'll put a GFDL notice in the article history, somehow. Gracenotes^T § 02:47, 1 September 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all. --ais523 16:59, 10 September 2007 (U T C)

All unused and redundant to ((Ko-hhrm)). PC78 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are no-longer transcluded onto any pages, therefore they can be deleted safely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conrad.Irwin (talk • contribs) Aug 30, 2007
Comment - I've added another one to the list, which was only being used in one article, and is now redundant following an update I've made to ((Ko-hhrm)). PC78 22:48, 30 August 2007 (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 page.

The result of the debate was delete, obvious user test. >Radiant< 07:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is either an attempt to create an article in template space or vandalism. The name would suggest the latter, but I've brought it here to comply with WP:AGF. Either way, something needs doing with it. — Grutness...wha? 02:00, 30 August 2007 (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.

August 30

Template:Blink

State Categorizations Templates

Anime character infoboxes

Template:Economy of Denmark table

Korean inline templates

Template:Please_leave_this_area_full_of_junk