Talk:💬

The given "etymology" doesn't tell us about the origins at all. It's sheer shape-description. Equinox ◑ 17:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I know. I've been bringing up for discussion where exactly should we place shape descriptions, if anywhere. I asked you today in this diff whether you agree with having shape descriptions in the "Etymology" section. I maintain that shape descriptions are important information to be kept somewhere. In this case, the shape description explains what is the role of the tail of the speech balloon and that it is common to see both ellipsis-shaped and rounded-corner square-shaped balloons. To be fair, the importance of a shape description in entries is just my opinion. There are different opinions in the poll, and the "Description" vote did not start yet. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

w:Speech balloon has information about the origins: "word balloons very much like those in use today were added almost immediately, as early as 1896". If Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Description passes, we'll be able to have a "Description" section with the visual description and the "Etymology" section with the actual origins. The new section does not have to be "Description". It could be "Shape". In Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/August#Poll: Description section, "Description" has more supports than "Shape". If we count your "if we do have it, I would favour 'Shape'" as a support vote, then "Description" and "Shape" are tied. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)