Template talk:rfv

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

[edit] Documentation

To use this template:

1. Add {{rfv|optional reason here}} to an entry.
2. Start a new discussion on Wiktionary:Requests for verification, using the (+).

If you want to display the template without adding the word to Category:Requests for verification then pass the demo parameter, for example {{rfv|surely not...}} renders as:

If the RFV could do with attention from someone versed in a particular field, add the parameter topic=[topic]; this will add the page (automatically) to Category:Entries needing topical attention and (eventually, manually) to the list at Wiktionary:Entries needing topical attention.

[edit] Choice of icon

While I like the idea of icons, I think this one's a little confusing. It looks more like an rfd than an rfv. Millie 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I dunno. I thought it captured the idea well. Unlike at pedia stuff that hits our RFD is more obviously nonsense... RFV is more a process of questioning whether or not something is trash disguised as a valid word, or a valid word disguised as trash, as it were. Hence the icon at Template:rfvdelete is the same icon without the question mark. But if a better icon set can be found, go for it. —Muke Tever 19:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

= "Is this trash to be thrown away?" (rfv)

File:Keeptidy.png = "This is trash being thrown away." (on rfvdelete)

How about this one? I think it looks a little more like editing and less like wholesale deletion. What do you think? Millie 03:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not very attractive, but that's the only objection I can think of atm. —Muke Tever 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? It's like researching a definition. Millie 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While that is more attractive, it does not convey that "rfv" is the process for weeding out garbage. New users often will contest a rfd, but will be so confused by rfv (and the implication of legitamacy given to their made up nonsense,) they will often give up quietly. The trashcan captured that sentiment quite well, I think. Perhaps your icon will only add to that implication of presumed legitamacy? --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're presuming legitamacy to bypass any potential angst an rfd would cause, a big trash picture wouldn't be very useful, right? Millie 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Connel that it is better to highlight the idea that the offending item will be removed if the research is not done—this is not just a casual 'requests for further citation', this is a mandate to publish or perish, as it were. —Muke Tever

Maybe a book burning logo?  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it makes sense when you put it that way. (re: Muke's comment, not the book burning thing ;) ) Millie 13:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording: "does not meet" vs. "might not meet"

Maybe instead of "It has been suggested that this entry does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion", the template should say "It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion" (i.e., replace "does not" with "might not")? It seems like that would be a more accurate characterization of how RFV and this template are used. —Ruakh_TALK 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea Ruakh, you rock! I've gone ahead and implemented the change.

I've noticed that sometimes people put this template on words sort of lazily, in cases where an easy b.g.c. or wikipedia search immediately dispels any doubt of the word's authenticity. It almost seems like the template has two distinct uses, one is "I think this word should be deleted", the other seems to be "I'm interested in this word, and would like to see a citations section added". Maybe we should add a "rfcitations" template and restrict rfv to words which aren't blatantly obviously good English, like Egyptian fraction :-) Signed, Language Lover