Template talk:ca-num-ord-note

RFD discussion: January 2018–November 2021
I object to this kind of grammatical usage notes being repeated on dozen of entries. It's distracting, and belongs in an Appendix, not in individual entries. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some templatised usage notes can be good; this one is simply so poorly written that it really reduces the quality of the entries. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rah, reading so complicated an explanation of so trivial observations brucks the head. Who will give me back the five minutes of trying to understand this poor prose, and answering to how bad it is? Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted. Ultimateria (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)