Template talk:eo-adj-form

Template:eo-noun-form
Now redundant to. In fairness, they can both be used in the same entry, but then the inflection line just says the same things as the definition line. I like the WT:ACCEL solution of using . Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are different eo-xxxx-form templates that seem to be redundant to now. They can't replace eo-form of, because  then tags them as definitionless words. If you use them both, you just get the same information twice. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For example lipojn, specifically this edit, the entry repeats the information, twice in two consecutive lines. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:eo-adj-form
Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:eo-verb-form
Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. However, I would prefer that be used for the headword of form-of entries. —CodeCat 11:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Re CodeCat: The time for switching the 1,600,000 PAGENAMEs for 's is right after we discuss revamping inflection lines entirely, which we really need to do at some point. ;) Not really a discussion for RFDO, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do these delete votes also count for eo-adj-form? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They're for all three... they all work the same after all. —CodeCat 08:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll delete these three and listed above Monday if there are no further objections. To orphan them, I'll just replace the content with  then add subst:. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. --Yair rand (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)