Template talk:pt-superseded-diacritic-Brazil

This is kind of ridiculous... it's not like people starting writing differently as soon as the spelling reform was promulgated. I remember that in the German Rechtschreibreformen, large percentages of the population continued to not only write, but publish, works using the older standard for decades. Unless it was brutally enforced by the regime, I think we need a better wording. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They do. Only a small percentage of the population continues to use old orthography.


 * Every major Brazilian publisher adopted it immediately as it came into effect.
 * The largest Portuguese publisher,, adopted it.
 * Brazilian universities (at least the ones I’m familiar with) consider pre-reform words misspellings in admission tests (thus lowering the chance of, or even preventing, those who use pre-reform spelling from getting into college); surely this counts as “brutally enforced”.
 * Portugal began enforcing the new orthography in schools in January 2011. Not brutal but it’s still an enforcement.
 * Anyway, I don’t think this needs better wording. Instead, there should be a template for words made obsolete by spelling reforms and one for words made obsolete phonological change, such as and, respectively. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's pretty intense. I still think that wording like "considered obsolete" is better than "obsolete" because obsoleteness in Wiktionary jargon usually refers to longterm change, not necessarily phonological but also not overnight. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We shouldn’t use Wiktionary jargon in definitions, but on second thought it does need some rewording. Not “considered obsolete”, because it’s vague (considered obsolete by whom?) and makes it look like an opinion (it’s not “X considers Y to be obsolete”, really it’s “X dictates that Y is obsolete”). I dunno how to reword it though; I’m not a creative person. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should categorise as an obsolete form, but the text should instead say something like "superseded". It was spelled without the acute before the '71 reform, right? That makes it a little harder to phrase. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Changed it. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)