Wiktionary:Votes/2019-12/Logograms

Voting 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. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

1. 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)

@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? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Retracted. A better thought-out vote can always be proposed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)