Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms you have here. The definition of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-02/Allow retronyms, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Vote now open. This is the talk page. John Cross (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
This vote has garnered no feedback, has not been visibly advertised, has not been a subject of prior discussion in the BP (or at least no such discussion is listed on the vote page), and has not been listed on {{votes}}. The best course of action would be to postpone the start date by at least a week, and post about it in the BP to assess the community's response. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Given the mostly negative feedback, I think you may want to reconsider this vote. If you do choose to go ahead with it, be sure to list it at
{{votes}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I really think we need to formalize a rule that votes on policy must have been previously discussed, and that the text of the vote must have been proofread by at least a few experienced editors. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- That sounds like too much bureaucracy. I had hoped that John would see the discussion as a way to improve upon the vote (or at least acknowledge that it wouldn't pass as written), but I suppose I didn't make that clear enough in my comment above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- I think it's a bigger bureaucratic nightmare that anyone can just create a binding vote without discussion. I'd like to be able to just delete such votes on sight and tell the creator to bring it up at the BP first. --WikiTiki89 17:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@John Cross: Go ahead with the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is this vote asking for all possible retronyms to be included? Or is attestation still a requirement? -Stelio (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah I don't like creating "paperwork" but this vote is a perfect example of why discussion is important. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @John Cross, as the person calling the vote, do you have a view on my question? -Stelio (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- In my view attestation is still required. I was trying to create a limited exception to 'sum of parts' but not to change other requirements.John Cross (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply