Wiktionary >
Requests
> Requests for verification
Wiktionary Request pages
(edit)
see also:
discussions
|
Requests for cleanup
add new
|
history
|
archives
Cleanup
requests, questions and discussions.
|
Requests for verification/English
add new English request
|
history
|
archives
Requests for verification
in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.
|
Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request
|
history
Requests for verification
of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.
|
Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request
|
history
Requests for verification
of Italic-language entries.
|
Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request
|
history
|
archives
Requests for verification
of any other non-English entries.
|
Requests for deletion/Others
add new
|
history
Requests for deletion
and undeletion of pages in
other
(not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
|
Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new
|
history
|
archives
Moves, mergers and splits
; requests listings, questions and discussions.
|
Requests for deletion/English
add new English request
|
history
|
archives
Requests for deletion
of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.
|
Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request
|
history
Requests for deletion
and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.
|
Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request
|
history
Requests for deletion
and undeletion of Italic-language entries.
|
Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request
|
history
|
archives
Requests for deletion
and undeletion of any other non-English entries.
|
Requests for deletion/?Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request
|
history
Requests for deletion
and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
|
{{attention}}
??
{{rfap}}
??
{{rfdate}}
??
{{rfquote}}
??
{{rfdef}}
??
{{rfeq}}
??
{{rfe}}
??
{{rfex}}
??
{{rfi}}
??
{{rfp}}
|
For verification of English terms:
including Middle English, Scots, Yola, Fingallian
|
/English
|
For verification of Chinese/Japanese/Korean terms:
|
/CJK
|
For verification of Italic-language terms:
|
/Italic
|
For verification of other terms:
|
/Non-English
|
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 “green leaf”
Templates:
Shortcut:
See also:
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
{{
rfv
}}
or
{{
rfv-sense
}}
to the questioned entry, and then add a new section to the appropriate subpage. 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 any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.
Closing a request:
After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:
- Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
- Adding a comment to the discussion here with either
RFV-failed
or
RFV-passed
(emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
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 (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use
RFV-resolved
for such situations).
Archiving a request:
At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the
aWa
gadget, which can be enabled at
WT:PREFS
.
You can
subscribe
to a
web feed
of this page in either
RSS
or
Atom
format.