vote is simple by design. By contrast, Wiktionary:<span class="searchmatch">Votes</span>/<span class="searchmatch">pl</span>-<span class="searchmatch">2014</span>-<span class="searchmatch">06</span>/<span class="searchmatch">Allowing</span> <span class="searchmatch">attested</span> <span class="searchmatch">romanizations</span> may fail over a disagreement over wording and its implications...
pl-2014-06/Allowing attested <span class="searchmatch">romanizations</span> at [[Wiktionary talk:<span class="searchmatch">Votes</span>/<span class="searchmatch">pl</span>-<span class="searchmatch">2014</span>-<span class="searchmatch">06</span>/<span class="searchmatch">Allowing</span> <span class="searchmatch">attested</span> <span class="searchmatch">romanizations</span>#merge the <span class="searchmatch">votes</span>]]; please comment there.—msh210℠...
21:15, 30 June <span class="searchmatch">2014</span> (UTC) Is this a proposal to <span class="searchmatch">allow</span> <span class="searchmatch">romanizations</span> of all Sanskrit terms, irrespective of whether the <span class="searchmatch">romanization</span> is <span class="searchmatch">attested</span>? bd2412 T 14:15...
we would want an <span class="searchmatch">attested</span> <span class="searchmatch">romanization</span> redirecting to an entry and not also being noted in that entry. bd2412 T 23:25, 14 August <span class="searchmatch">2014</span> (UTC) @DCDuring There's...
May 2013 (UTC) Wiktionary:<span class="searchmatch">Votes</span>/<span class="searchmatch">pl</span>-<span class="searchmatch">2014</span>-04/Unified Chinese is starting tomorrow. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:45, 28 March <span class="searchmatch">2014</span> (UTC) Hi, @Tooironic, @Jamesjiao...
(as the operator of an interwiki bot, according to -sche in Wiktionary:<span class="searchmatch">Votes</span>/<span class="searchmatch">pl</span>-2015-05/Normalization of entries#Oppose). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:13, 14 June...
different relations. Regardless of the status of <span class="searchmatch">romanizations</span> as "spellings", official, or unofficial, <span class="searchmatch">romanizations</span> are clearly written forms, not spoken forms...
have m <span class="searchmatch">pl</span> inan, m <span class="searchmatch">pl</span> anim, f <span class="searchmatch">pl</span> inan, and f <span class="searchmatch">pl</span> anim. We should also mark the animacy for all singular nouns that have plurals. --WikiTiki89 16:<span class="searchmatch">06</span>, 22 June...
may be wrong, but I doubt the <span class="searchmatch">Romans</span> used these marks. My feeling is that these marks are <span class="searchmatch">attested</span> later than what we <span class="searchmatch">allow</span> for attestation of Latin words...
Wiktionary doesn't have to apologise on every page on how it works. The <span class="searchmatch">votes</span> on Chinese and Serbo-Croatian unifications defined the dictionary policies...