Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification/archive
Perhaps we should have a template that says "this entry survived our rfv process" with a checkmark logo or something? It could have some verbiage about why the citations are retained in the entry and perhaps a warning not to resubmit it to rfv? Or should such a thing go through the WT:BP for a vote, first? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a nice idea, maybe you should run it by BP. —Muke Tever 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Split this page?
Perhaps this page WT:RFVA would be better off split into thirds? As:
== Entries that failed == Redlinks == Entries that failed but were retained == Bluelinks Because of other (valid) language entries on same page. == Senses that failed == Bluelinks
Perhaps even a fourth section:
== Entries that have reappeared == i.e. stuff that should be watched for a year or so.
Maybe just maybe, even split the sections onto separate pages. The big downside is the effort of updating the monthly section for three sections instead of just one. The big benefit is seeing only redlinks in section 1. Admittedly, that is not a very big benefit now, but after a year of rfv's, it may be quite important. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Archiving of WT:RFV
By the way, in my attempts to clean out the RFV page, I have been archiving the rfvfailed entries according to the method I suggested here, it having been recognised as a good method. In the event the community decides that only the method of listing individual words should be applied, however, please note that I'll be happy to go through the entries I have diff-archived and pull them out and list them individually. (Leave a message on my talk page, in case I don't notice this page.) -- Beobach972 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)