Talk:Protractor: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:06, 9 April 2015

Possible link spam

It could just be that I can't read German, but the link to Geodreieck seems to have nothing to do with protractors. Dan Slotman 20:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper link

I agree that the link has nothing closely related to protractors.Versi 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with bevel protractor

The bevel protractor article does not contain sufficient information to stand on its own. As it is a specific kind of protractor, it should be merged into this article.

Neelix (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to have not been controversial suggestion so I have started making the merge -Hunting dog (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Hello
-:Protractor? I hardly knew 'er!  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.180.200.219|91.180.200.219]] ([[User talk:91.180.200.219|talk]]) 20:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ==Possible link spam==
@@ Line 6: / Line 4: @@
 == Improper link ==
 I agree that the link has nothing closely related to protractors.[[User:Versi|Versi]] 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)