Template talk:he-plural-noun

Template:he-plural-noun
Why does this template exist? We don't normally have templates for the inflection lines of plurals... --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's for pluralia tantum, or dualia(??) tantum. Hebrew has a number of especially the latter, and he-noun doesn't work for them. I suppose it could be modified to do so, but what's wrong with this template? In other words, this template works for the job it's intended for, and nothing else does that job, so keep. Note also that the nomination's reason is very, very weak (maybe we don't usually have templates for the inflection lines of plurals, but (a) so what? and (b) English has one!). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't understand the purpose of the template. Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have . Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should say that the template can also be used for plain old plurals. But at the moment it's not being used for them, and, in any event, it certainly is good for the pluralia tantum. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Kept, author withdrew nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: May–September 2016
Superseded by new (the switch to the module), not used in the main namespace for months now and was never in heavy use anyway. Enosh (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 13:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)