did: unpass Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing vote requirements for policy changes create Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Vote requirements for policy...
between policy pages and common practice. As an example, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/Patronymics_and_stylistic_edits_of_CFI is a perfect way to go about...
DCDuring TALK 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC) And indeed, [[coal mine]] had already passed RFD by the time [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-12/Unidiomatic multi-word...
"Further semantic relations (except See also)". —RuakhTALK 23:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) "Synonyms, Antonyms, Other allowable -nyms" looks better to me than...
sections. Problem is, one implies the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC) The discussion linked to was AFAICT about whether to link language...
this vote. To obscure this fact from the vote is highly biased. —Michael Z. 2012-03-14 02:01 z Some editors have expressed their preference that votes not...
vote page is needed as well; I'm not sure. The one contemporaneous usage requirement for extinct languages was discussed at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl...
16 February 2012 (UTC) Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-12/curly quotes in WT:ELE may (or may not) be relevant. —RuakhTALK 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Ha, I...
(talk) 13:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC) My reason to oppose is in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Overturning COALMINE, starting with "I don't see any problem that removing...
about the phrasebook in their vote comments, to help shape further votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC) in a appendix is not very...