Wiktionary:<span class="searchmatch">Place</span> <span class="searchmatch">names</span> to Wiktionary:<span class="searchmatch">Criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span>/<span class="searchmatch">Place</span> <span class="searchmatch">name</span> <span class="searchmatch">arguments</span>, because this page is only a list of possible <span class="searchmatch">arguments</span> with no policy...
Wiktionary talk:<span class="searchmatch">Criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span>/Archive 1 Wiktionary talk:<span class="searchmatch">Criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span>/Archive 2 Wiktionary talk:<span class="searchmatch">Criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span>/Archive 3 Proposed...
"Wikisaurus - <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> <span class="searchmatch">criteria</span>". --Dan Polansky 16:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC) I agree that there is no reason to adopt different <span class="searchmatch">criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> Wikisaurus...
The rule <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> of proper <span class="searchmatch">names</span> are outdated, they are not followed and unhelpful. Maintenance complexity should not be a factor if <span class="searchmatch">name</span> spelling...
published works, so I think these words (youve and youre) satisfy <span class="searchmatch">Criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span>. —Muke Tever 02:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) I've deleted it, along with...
arguments about <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> of non-attributive <span class="searchmatch">place</span> <span class="searchmatch">names</span> in the main namespace appear to be at an impasse.: I don't see why. I have seen <span class="searchmatch">arguments</span> against being...
been RFD'd lately I feel do merit some kind of <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> here, whilst others don't, and the easiest way <span class="searchmatch">for</span> me to determine that is to look at their translations...
<span class="searchmatch">names</span>. As a dictionary, we should really draw the line <span class="searchmatch">for</span> what is worthy of <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> — and that is why I’ve created this voted in the first <span class="searchmatch">place</span>....
generous <span class="searchmatch">criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> the <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> of <span class="searchmatch">names</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">places</span>, and this proposal would do the same <span class="searchmatch">for</span> celestial objects. But why do entries <span class="searchmatch">for</span> the <span class="searchmatch">names</span> of specific...
as follows: <span class="searchmatch">Place</span> <span class="searchmatch">names</span>, that is, <span class="searchmatch">name</span> of geographic entities, are subject to the requirement of attestability as <span class="searchmatch">criteria</span> <span class="searchmatch">for</span> <span class="searchmatch">inclusion</span> specified in...