Template talk:rarely

Delete. Redundant to. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I now see the template is used as productive at ac-, so it is not the same thing as. Don't we have a way of making this up without a new template? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the handful of places people wrote before this template was created should indeed be  for consistency. (One of them was my fault; I fixed it.) "rarely productive" could be coded  or just . Are there other phrases that need to be preceded by "rarely" not "rare"? Other phrases I can think of could (and for consistency should) all be "rare," : e.g.  not,  not , etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep unless, we can find a way of getting the meaning across as rare does not work in the productive context, and there are other times that I ran across the need for the use of rarely instead of rare. The amount of overhead required to keep an near but not quite redundant template alive is minimal, and with proper documentation on the template pages, we can alleviate possible confusion. Speednat (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * . Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete, not sure which: but do not redirect to template:rare. That would prevent use of . &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, the nomination says "Redundant to " but that's false, in fact: This template does not categorize the entry as rare. And that's a good thing IMO. So the only thing this template does is make it easier on people to use or the like: they can use  instead. Keep then! &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

K  This member of Category:Qualifier context labels is completely different from, of Category:Usage context labels (which could be more finely categorized in Category:Frequency context labels). —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 19:28 z 

Kept 12:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)