Template talk:Universala Vortaro

Template:Universala Vortaro
It is not needed because it is useless to identify a word as one being used over a hundred years ago. Razorflame 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the template should definitely be improved or deleted, as it does nothing but save typing the word category. Did you want to RFD the category as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say subst: the template and delete it, but keep the category (not that it has been nominated). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe keep and improve, add usage notes. With templates, there's quite often the option improve or delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't really see the use in categorizing pages based upon what dictionary it came from. I would rather classify them based on lists of how often they are used, like the  templates.  Cheers, Razor<b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 01:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point isn't to mark what dictionary a word came from, it's more a matter of etymological and historical interest to Esperantologists which words were in that first Esperanto wordlist. Some of those roots are ones that I would label archaic now, superseded by more modern forms.
 * We might also consider making a category for the NEAB GCSE list. Until about 1990, the Northern Examinations and Assessment Board could award General Certificates of Secondary Education in Esperanto to UK students; these are the words those students were expected to know. It's no longer offered, but it's as worthwhile a list of basic vocabulary as BRO.
 * I also find this Common Roots Glossary based on Frekvencmorfemaro de Parolata Esperanto, which claims its list of 467 morphemes are enough to yield 95% comprehension in Esperanto. I don't know about that, but it seems like a good checklist for Vikivortaristoj; getting 467 high-frequency words listed seems like a reasonable and attainable goal. - Robin 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the template has no advantage over just writing the category out. I remember that was a similar case, where it was only kept on the grounds someone would make something useful out of it. And they did. So what would we do with this? Essentially any template that doesn't take any parameters can be subst:ed without any marked change to the entry, apart from neatness. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)