Template talk:pt-noun-m-unc

Deletion debate
Precisely the same reasons as (et al.) above. works perfectly well. One slight difference is the relative frequency of each template:


 * : 479
 * : 366
 * : 292
 * : 83

So orphaning it would be an easier job than for above. Though that in itself is not a reason to delete these. The reason is they offer nothing that doesn't do, or couldn't do very easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant Portuguese templates per Mglovesfun. --Daniel. 11:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Even more surprisingly bad templates; since allows - to show uncountability. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both. --Yair rand 04:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oprhaned anyway, using and . --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All fail. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)