Wiktionary:Votes/2011-09/Unified Tagalog

Voting on: unifying Category:Tagalog language and Category:Filipino language into a single Category:Tagalog language. This would involve the emptying and eventual deletion (or use of {{movecat}}) of all of the subcategories of Category:Filipino language including topical categories that start with Category:fil. {{fil}} would either be deleted (when unused) or moved to {{etyl:fil}}. This would be decided by a discussion on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Support sure, why not -- Liliana • 14:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vahag 08:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JorisvS 14:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If there are places where it is necessary to distinguish, we have context tags and usage notes. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If Filipino/Pilipino becomes a more common term, we can always change it. As of now, Tagalog is the most common term used in the Philippines and abroad. --Anatoli 00:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matthias Buchmeier 08:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maro 19:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (For the reasons I gave in WT:BP#Filipino and Tagalog) -- Gronky 18:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems very reasonable with little grounds for objection. DAVilla 06:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ruakh deleted my vote (the comment read something like "This vote is a genocide" with a bunch of exclamation marks) — [Ric Laurent] — 12:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did, and in my opinion he shouldn't have. The comment wasn't so inappropriate that it couldn't have stayed. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He shouldn't have whether it was inappropriate or not. If it had been something wildly, completely unacceptable maybe, but otherwise he could have asked me to change it. Or, removed the comment and left the vote. But really, I know we all do shit we shouldn't so I'm not going to put an unfair double standard on him. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were just making an offensive joke at the expense of the B/C/S splittists. I didn't realize that you genuinely meant your "oppose" vote. Mea culpa. —Ruakh_TALK 13:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Truth told, I'm not concerned about the outcome of this vote, but it looks like it's going to pass anyway, and I feel like every vote needs at least one twat to oppose it for no reason whatsoever. Today, I shall be that twat. Oh but yes, the comment was meant to disparage those... people. — [Ric Laurent] — 15:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Ƿidsiþ 07:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain, won't affect me, but I'll unify 'em by bot if no other bot users want to do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Dan Polansky 08:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC), only because I do not want to look into the issue; I am inclined to support. --Dan Polansky 08:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]