Talk:Cup Final

RFV
(not tagged) I have added two plurals (no entries yet); I think both forms may be acceptable and verifiable. By the way, cup finals occur in other countries as well, such as Norway, so they're not peculiar to Britain. Donnanz (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No response, so either no one cares, or the plurals are OK. I will make entries for them. Donnanz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you tagged this on February 16 2015, it can be deleted as uncited in a month. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The plurals are now done. If anyone wants to query this they should know what to do. Donnanz (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RFV failed, please delete per Donnanz's nomination. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of fact-twisting in that statement. It wasn't nominated for deletion. Donnanz (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No facts were twisted- by posting an entry here, you're, in effect, nominating it (conditionally) for deletion. RM apparently decided to take you at your word in order to get you to pay attention. Since you don't seem to want to scroll up to read the header, I'll quote the first paragraph here:
 * Overview: Requests for verification is a page 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 CFI, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Requests for deletion.
 * Since you seem to have very little clue about the function of the various pages:
 * Information desk: Used when you just want an answer to a question.
 * Tea room: Used for discussion of entries. This seems to be where this item really belongs
 * Requests for cleanup: Used to request help in fixing problems with an entry, or in solving problems involving multiple entries.
 * Etymology scriptorium: Used to request help or information regarding etymologies. This is also the best place to ask about proto-language entries in the appendices, since they're really a sort of extension of the etymologies.
 * Requests for verification: Used when you want to delete an entry or remove a sense because you don't believe it's attested in the language in question or it's not attested with the meaning in question. Also used when you don't believe that existing usage meets the requirements in WT:BRAND or WT:FICTION. Occasionally used when someone wants to determine something about the term or sense by examining the patterns of usage (this is technically misuse of rfv, but it's accepted because it's the best place for asking such questions). The common thread is, you want to verify something about usage, and delete the item in question if its usage doesn't measure up.
 * Requests for deletion: Used when you want to delete an entry or remove a sense for reasons that have nothing to do with usage.
 * Requests for deletion/other: Used when you want to delete something that's not a dictionary article in mainspace.
 * Requests for moves, mergers and splits: Used when you want to redistribute content without removing it. It may result in the deletion of redundant entries that are merged, but that's not its primary purpose. It's also used for questions of merging, splitting and/or renaming languages/language codes, which is a holdover from the days when each language code had its own template. We should probably come up with a dedicated page with an appropriate name, but nobody has thought of a good one.
 * Grease pit: Used to ask about technical issues, bugs, etc. Also used to ask for help from people with bots or with the ability to extract information from the XML dumps.
 * Vandalism in progress: Used to bring vandalism to the attention of admins, and to ask for help in dealing with spammers, vandals, and other users who are causing serious problems.
 * Beer parlour: Used for general discussion or for discussing matters of policy.
 * I hope this will help you to avoid using the wrong pages in the future. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, RM is not admin, and should not be allowed to decide whether an RFV fails or passes. In future, where possible, I will do things myself without referral to RFV. Donnanz (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, one doesn't have to be an admin to close rfd's and rfv's. Purplebackpack89 closes them all the time, and he's not an admin, either. Of course, an admin still has to do the actual deletion when an entry fails, but someone always does. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would put PBP a few rungs further up the ladder in comparison. Donnanz (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It was never tagged. Donnanz (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RFV closed as not deleted: no search for attesting quotations actually requested by the nominator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)