Wiktionary:Votes/2019-12/Logograms
Logograms
editVoting on whether to allow ===Logogram=== as a valid POS header. It is used in various entries, see Category:English braille logograms for some. --Vealhurl (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Schedule:
- Vote starts: 00:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- Vote ends:
23:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC) - Vote created: Vealhurl (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion: [1]
Support
editOppose
edit- Oppose Don’t really see a point when we already have a
===Symbol===
header for that, which also works better for graphemes that have multiple functions, some logogrammatic and some not. (How would we classify 𓆈 if we had a===Logogram===
header? Logogram or not?) Without any rationale provided, I can’t tell what problem this is trying to address/why it would be preferable to using===Symbol===
. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC) - Oppose, I second those concerns. A logogram is pretty much already a symbol, so why add a new category? --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose "Symbol" seems a good enough header, especially in the absence of any arguments for why it is not. DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Creator does not understand under a logogram what I understand, and the purpose of this vote could only be to disrupt by making various understandings clash. Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Abstain
edit- Abstain I'm inclined to support, but I feel the vote should be more specific on the usage of this header. When is it applicable? is it used for languages or scripts? – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 05:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
edit@Vorziblix, Robbie SWE, DCDuring, Fay Freak, Tom 144, Lambiam: This vote was poorly conceived with no prior discussion by a permabanned editor, and seems to be a waste of time. Does anyone oppose retracting it on WF's behalf? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, I do not oppose this. Fay Freak (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I support retracting it, but not for WF. Just because it wasn't very thought out. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 13:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- I’d say go ahead, unless WF comes back with a more substantive proposal/argumentation. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- No opposition from me. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- No problemo; it doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being adopted anyway. --Lambiam 23:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Decision
editRetracted. A better thought-out vote can always be proposed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)