Template talk:R:wsource

Template:PL:pedia

 * Template:PL:versity
 * Template:PL:source
 * Template:PL:species

etc. are all redundant to, , ,. What should be done about these templates? TeleComNasSprVen 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Kept all. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all. One could just as well say that and so on are redundant to these. ;-)   It's kind of funny: the nomination just above this one is trying to eliminate a box template on the grounds that it's bulky and redundant to a one-liner, and here you're trying to the reverse. Though in your defense, the interproject boxes and interproject one-liners are actually equivalent, or nearly so. —Ruakh TALK 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I might support deleting et al, however, because in combination with other right-hand side elements, they cause IE to display a great blank spot. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all, per Internoob, I'd be more likely to support deleting wikipedia (etc.) as it's boxy and causes spacing problems. Up till now I think we've always considered to spacing problems to be offset by the value of the template. Still, I use not . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 'em, per the other keepers. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: These templates were never tagged with . I've now tagged them. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)