Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories

Related questions
I'm not sure we can vote on just this one question, without at least mentioning some intimately related questions:


 * Is this is a topical category, like Category:sv:Alcoholic beverages, or is it a grammatical category, like Category:Swedish uncountable nouns?
 * This affects which entries appear in the category, both in subtle ways (just because a term denotes a number, that doesn't mean it actually functions linguistically the way that a term like does) and in not-so-subtle ways (a term like  clearly pertains to the general topic of cardinal numbers, but is not itself a cardinal number).
 * Do we allow ==Cardinal number== as a part of speech header? If so, I think it's basically a given that we have to treat it as a grammatical category, Category:Swedish cardinal numbers.

For that matter, I could well imagine having both Category:Swedish cardinal numbers and Category:sv:Cardinal numbers, with a great deal of overlap between the two. (I don't think I'd vote for such an option, but I do think it's a legitimate option to have.)

—Ruakh TALK 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing options
From how I understand the vote, the voter is given two naming options: (a) "Category:Swedish cardinal numbers" and (b) "Category:sv:Cardinal numbers". However, given my current state of knowledge, I tend to prefer (c) "Category:Swedish cardinal numerals", a category for words rather than numbers, one that excludes the Swedish translation of "aleph-null"—a cardinal number in the mathematical sense.

If I am not given the option (c), I'm going to vote for (a) "Category:Swedish cardinal numbers", reading it as synonymous to "Category:Swedish cardinal numerals".

I think the best way of structuring this vote is to make it a grouping of three approval votes on three options, meaning that each of the three options is given both support and oppose sections. --Dan Polansky 14:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that. I just created it as I saw fit and let other people reread it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, you are offering the voter two underspecified options to choose from, and no oppose button. I think that's not a particularly good thing to do. Let's see how this turns out. --Dan Polansky 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "I don't mind [you modifying it]". Essentially AFAICT being able to support or above both options only complicates matters with no upsides. But when I said AFAICT for a reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There needed to be an "oppose both" option, so I added one. I'm not sure if we should limit people to vote for only one, or to do approval voting. Additionally, this makes the passing criteria trickier. --Bequw → τ 03:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)