Bruger:PseudoSkull/RFV

Fra Wiktionary
Spring til navigation Spring til søgning

requests for verification

Wiktionary request pages (edit) see also: discussions

dismiss

Requests for cleanup

add new history archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification

add new history archives old index

Requests for verification in the form of

durably-archived attestations conveying

the meaning of a term in question.

Requests for deletion

Requests for deletion of pages in the

main namespace due to policy violations;

also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/others

Requests for deletion in the other

(not the main) namespaces, such as

categories, appendices, and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits; requests

listings, questions and discussions.

case trans date redundant def photo

discussion

overview: this page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. it is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or "sum of parts" should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the tea room.

adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template Skabelon:rfv or Skabelon:rfv-sense to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (if this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)

cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talkpage (using {{[[archive]]-[[top]]|rfv}} + {{archive-[[bottom]]}}). historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. examples of discussions archived at talk pages: talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

oldest tagged

scope of this request page: In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf

shortcut: WT:RFV See also: Criteria for inclusion format for citations standard entry layout A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.