Template talk:rfv
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)- 100px| = "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)
- 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
- 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)
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. —RuakhTALK 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
Namespace check
I added a namespace check so that it only works in NS:0 (no namespace, like foo) and Transwiki. Only disadvantage I can think of is it won't display anything on discussion pages like WT:BP. Other than that, I see no problem. Other namespaces can easily be added or taken away. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Deletion debate
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This appears to be just a much bulkier, non-definition-specific version of {{rfv-sense}}. Is there really any reason to use this template instead of {{rfv-sense}}? --Yair rand (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep.
{{rfv-sense}}means "I think this is a real word, but I don't think this specific sense exists. This sense should therefore be removed."{{rfv}}means "I don't think this is a real word. This entry should therefore be deleted." —RuakhTALK 22:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)- ? If there only is one sense in an entry and it's marked with
{{rfv-sense}}and fails, then of course the whole entry is deleted... And if{{rfv}}was specifically for entire entries, we wouldn't have any entries with it under language headers or pos headers... ??? --Yair rand (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)- Actually, no, I've many times removed an RFV-failed sense and replaced it with
{{rfdef|lang=langcode}}, when the sense was wrong but the word is attestable in a different sense; often there are accurate quotations, etymology, or other such information, or even if there aren't, I'd rather not create a deletion-log entry that gives the impression that the word failed RFV, when all that failed was an erroneous definition. - As for
{{rfv}}in specific language sections: that's true, but it neither affects my point nor supports yours. It's then "I don't think this is a real word. This entry should therefore be removed." The removal of the entry via action=edit rather than action=delete is significant in many ways, but is not significant in terms of how RFV goes. - As for
{{rfv}}in specific POS sections: that's true. *shrug* I guess there are some combinations of editor + POS section wherein the editor sees the POS section as an entry, and some combinations of editor + POS section wherein the editor sees the POS section as a holder for some senses. - Actually, thinking about it, that may be the whole point of contention here: perhaps you see an entry as nothing but a holder for some senses? I see an entry as much more than that. If an entry has an etymology section, and I don't think the word exists at all, I want a huge honking
{{rfv}}atop the entry to warn readers that the entire entry is disputed. - —RuakhTALK 00:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, no, I've many times removed an RFV-failed sense and replaced it with
- ? If there only is one sense in an entry and it's marked with
- edit conflict:
- Frankly, the idea is to conspicuously warn users, including translators, that some lexicographic unit is not reliable and to draw interested folks to participate in the discussion. Attempting to paper over the substantive deficiencies of Wiktionary entries with pretty formatting seems extremely counterproductive. The RfV/RfD tags are appropriately conspicuous. The inconspicuousness of the sense-level tag is an effort to protect the good portions of an entry from such a warning, while still providing the warning to someone reading the definitions in detail. The inconspicuousness of sense-level tags means they tend to not fulfill some of the attention-getting function of the bolder boxes. Perhaps we should have the RfV/RfD notices always appear prominently at the top of the L2 section to draw maximum attention and supplement that with smaller PoS-level and sense-level boxes or other notices. I have a sense of translators wasting a great amount of effort on very low-quality English entries, possibly because various notices (such as RfD, RfV, RfC, and Webster) and context tags (such as obsolete, archaic, and rare) are ignored. The notices don't seem prominent enough or properly placed to prevent such waste of effort.
- Further, in some case an entire PoS may be suspect, as is often the case for English adjective sections in entries where the noun is primary and the adjective senses are probably only attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for now. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit request for protected template
then it will be deleted should be changed to it will be deleted. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 07:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good call. I changed it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 07:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
language code as first parameter
This should accept a language code as the first parameter, like other request templates already do. —CodeCat 19:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there is already another first parameter in use. Do you think it's a good idea to check whether the first parameter is a language code, and assume it's a comment if it's not a valid code? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- It can be done the way
{{rfe}}does it. —CodeCat 19:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)- That's fine too. If you want to fix all the entries, be my guest, and update the documentation when you're done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- See Category:Language code missing/rfv. —CodeCat 19:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- What am I supposed to see there? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- That there are no entries to fix, they all have
lang=already. —CodeCat 19:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)- Yes, I know; I fixed them all. So if you want to do it the
{{rfe}}way, feel free to do so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)- Ok, can you unprotect the template? —CodeCat 19:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Do
{{rfv-sense}}as well, and ping me when you're done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)- It should be done now. I have also added tracking for the
demo=parameter of{{rfv}}, which I don't think is useful. I don't think full protection is necessary, either; have people ever vandalised this template? —CodeCat 20:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)- @CodeCat: Please remove the demo tracking category (since there are no entries using it, you might as well just remove it altogether) and update the documentation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- It can take a while to fill up a tracking category. —CodeCat 21:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. Regardless, please update the documentation as I asked. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- A regex search for the parameter yields two results, in the Template and Wiktionary namespaces. — Eru·tuon 21:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- It can take a while to fill up a tracking category. —CodeCat 21:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- @CodeCat: Please remove the demo tracking category (since there are no entries using it, you might as well just remove it altogether) and update the documentation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- It should be done now. I have also added tracking for the
- Done. Do
- Ok, can you unprotect the template? —CodeCat 19:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I know; I fixed them all. So if you want to do it the
- That there are no entries to fix, they all have
- What am I supposed to see there? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- See Category:Language code missing/rfv. —CodeCat 19:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine too. If you want to fix all the entries, be my guest, and update the documentation when you're done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- It can be done the way
More languages should point to /CJK
@Benwing2, Justinrleung: Can somebody with the necessary permissions please add more languages that belong in the /CJK room to this template? I was confused by the seemingly orphaned RFV in 水#Central Bai (which might just be an edge case), but other languages like Okinawan (or Ryukyuan in general) should definitely point there instead of Non-English. There are potentially more dangling RFVs to be found in this diff. Fytcha (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Fytcha I added some more. Not Central Bai or other types of Bai because I'm not sure they exclusively use Chinese script. Benwing2 (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Taxonomic name RfVs (and RfDs) should be on Italic subpage
{{rfv|mul}} (and {{rfd|mul}}) would take an RfV for a taxonomic name to the "Other languages" page. But a frequent issue is whether a term is Latin rather than Translingual. A blanket solution for Translingual does not work because of Translingual CJKV characters and Translingual symbols. Is the best solution just to use lang=la instead of lang=mul for taxonomic names? DCDuring (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)