Template talk:U:nl:obsolete spelling

=Documentation= Use this template in the ===Usage notes=== section of a Dutch word to indicate that the spelling was deprecated in a Dutch spelling reform.

Examples
===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

===Usage notes===

=Discussion=

RFDO discussion: July 2014–May 2015
As I was standardizing the naming of our usage note templates, I noticed that they weren't used anywhere. So, should we start using them in entries, or delete them? - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * this template is currently unused, but it looks like there are places it could be used, like vs . Should we start deploying it to entries or would it be better to delete it? - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably more useful to have separate templates for each spelling reform. This one is really too vague. —CodeCat 22:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Template:U:de:deprecated spelling, this template accepts parameters which specify which spelling reform did the deprecating. (And like Template:U:de:deprecated spelling et al, the wording may need to be adjusted.) - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So keep, and use like Template:U:de:deprecated spelling. ( isn't one template that accepts parameters betetr than several templates one per spelling reform?) - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)