Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
- Modern English citation, and OED entry, already listed and linked. Thanks for the oversight; now, kindly go do something useful instead of continuing to question thoroughly linked and established entries you could've verified from the sources already formatted and provided. — LlywelynII 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please read WT:CFI. We have only one valid cite- we need two more. As for the OED: it doesn't distinguish between Middle English and Modern English, and there are plenty of dictionary-only words that are always mentioned, but never used (esquivalience is probably the most extreme example). You've been around here for years, and you apparently know next to nothing about our verification requirements. You still have to follow the rules, whether you bother to learn them or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- The OED includes both Middle English and Scots as if they were English, and also sometimes considers single citations (or twitter citations...) sufficient; we, being a multilingual dictionary, include Middle English and Scots under their own headers, and we have more stringent requirements for attesting English. If the date given is correct, the "poete Varro rehersethe" citation is Middle English, and would be sufficient to create a ==Middle English== entry. The single modern English citation is insufficient to verify the English section. Looking through Google Books and Scholar, I don't see any more uses of it (as an English as opposed to an Italian word) in books on journals. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)