Template talk:Esperanto

Moved from: Talk:Esperanto

Esperanto Template
I would like to propose a template to coordinate all of the Esperanto series of articles. I have put it at Template:Esperanto, and it looks like this:

Any comments, criticisms?

--[[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 21:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A couple people have objected that 'pronunciation' is not a real article, and should be merged. Also, there's the pros & cons article, Esperanto as an international language, which needs work, but perhaps should be included (probably under a different title). Other than that, looks good. kwami 00:05, 2005 July 15 (UTC)


 * Zamenhof probably should moved from the title box into the history line. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 00:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a thought - what about linking the "Language:" caption to the main Eo article, the way History and Culture are, so that the main "Esperanto" caption is link free? That might fit in a little better with standard Wikipedia formatting, since section headings are not supposed to contain links. kwami 01:21, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
 * I made all of the above changes, but I think we should leave "Pronunciation" until it is no longer an article. --[[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 01:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No "Criticisms" link? kwami
 * Yes, under "Pros and cons". I thought of it after I wrote the post :-) --[[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 01:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, kinda lost where it is, and 'Criticism' might be a more intelligible title (it sounds like 'pros and cons of grammar' where it is now), but I'm not sure it deserves first billing of all the subarticles, which is where the spelling 'Criticism' would end up. Maybe add 'Criticism' to a forth row, or in the third row, but in the bold font that 'Culture' gets? That is, make it a 4th category, but combine the 3rd and 4th categories in the 3rd row, since they're shorter than the other two? kwami


 * Ok, how does that look? With this particular template's format, its hard to make a seperate category, without it going on a seperate line. That's not to say we can't alter the format. And of course, as always you are welcome to fiddle with the template :) --[[User:JonMoore|&mdash;Jo nMo ore  20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 03:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks good! kwami

Okay, I fiddled! Added a bunch of criticism links (Ido, Eo vs. IL, Educ. value, riism), plus organizations (UEA, UK, TEJO, pen pal & hospitality clubs), plus Unua Libro and native speakers. I'll understand if you think it's too cluttered, but I thought these would all be of interest. Except maybe riism, which is rather provincial, and was added mainly to balance the length of the lines. kwami 22:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I like the new format. kwami 22:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Baza (language)

 * see Deletion review/Log/2007 June 18
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Subject is a proposal made in 2003 to limit the vocabulary in Esperanto and its derivatives. Article makes no claim for the subject's notability, and cites no reliable third-party publications. The only provided sources are the self-published (and freely hosted) website of Greg Hoover, the proposal's creator, and the proposal's associated profile at the constructed language wiki Langmaker, which was also authored by Greg Hoover.

Attempts to use Google to establish notability or lack thereof prove difficult, as "Baza" is both a town in Granada and a common adjective in the Esperanto language. Baza's alternative name, "Inter-Esperanto" returns matches of the phrase "inter Esperanto" (no hyphen), which is quite common since "inter" is an Esperanto word for the preposition "between". Despite several attempts, I have not been able to find any reliable third-party sources on either Google or Google Scholar. A search on EBSCOhost, a search engine for academic journals, has also revealed nothing. -- Schaefer (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the nominator pretty much sums it up. This is unreviewed, non-peer reviewed material that evidently has not been published anywhere. It is therefore not proper for Wikipedia. Jody B  talk 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, complete failure of WP:V. Given the circumstances, it's incumbent on anyone wishing to save the article (as, per policy, it should be in any event in all cases) to provide proper sourcing before the AfD closes.    RGTraynor  18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR or WP:MADEUP.  semper fictilis  20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Search of major papers for Baza + language over last 10 years also turns up zip.  - Aagtbdfoua 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.