Template talk:specieslite

Deletion debate[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

etc. are all redundant to {{wikipedia}}, {{wikiversity}}, {{wikisource}}, {{wikispecies}}. What should be done about these templates? TeleComNasSprVen 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. One could just as well say that {{wikipedia}} 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)[reply]
Keep. I might support deleting {{wikipedia}} 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)[reply]
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 {{pedia}} not {{wikipedia}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'em, per the other keepers.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These templates were never tagged with {{rfd}}. I've now tagged them.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]