Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms you have here. The definition of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2011-02/Romanian orthographic norms, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I suggest that:
- the proposal includes the fact that redirects between the two forms should be systematic
- if the option with the comma is retained, the version with the cedilla should be also present if the word also exists in another language. In other terms, if a redirect is impossible, readers should nonetheless get what they want, whatever they have entered (and it's very likely that they will enter the word with the cedilla). Lmaltier 22:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Reply
- Yes. No question about it
- That's what the template
{{also}} is for. So no, but that goes to the typographical norms of other languages like Turkish and Azeri. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- My feeling is that readers entering the word in its usual (Internet) coding should be able to get data without having to click again. Lmaltier 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Simple principles should be kept. A principle is that a language section in a page is allowed if the title of the page is used in the language. This is very important in some cases. Imagine that a browser allows a search in the Wiktionary for any word of any website (such plug-ins already exist). Also imagine that users may give a list of language preferences (e.g. if the word is absent from en.wikt, try fr.wikt, then try es.wikt, etc.). The browser can use the language declared for the Internet page in order to determine whether a section for this language is present in the Wikionary page. If the page is absent, or present but without a section for the language, it will try the next wiktionary, etc. This might lead to display the page in Spanish while the word is actually present here. This is not what the user wanted. The solution is to always allow a section for a language when the word is used in the language. Failing to follow simple and sound principles always leads to problems, sooner or later (see KISS principle). Lmaltier 08:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
- No comment? Lmaltier 16:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
When the vote closes, how is it going to be decided? There was no mention in the prefatory info on the vote page regarding this issue. I assume (and would accept) that either (1) it'll be by approval voting (i.e., plurality), provided that the winning option also has a standard (for enwikt votes) supermajority among all voters or (2) it'll be only by which option has a standard (for enwikt votes) supermajority among all voters. (The difference between these is that if both non-opposing options have a supermajority but one has more supporters than the other then with vote-count method 1 the one with more voters will win whereas with method 2 there will be no winner.) Method 1 sounds more sensible to me. Thoughts?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Method 1, all the way. If both options have supermajorities, then the supermajoritier of them should win. —RuakhTALK 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply