Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification

=Documentation= The documentation of the "Requests for verification" process can be found at Requests for verification/Header.

The entries listed on this page need to meet Criteria for inclusion, which see.

Do not confuse with Requests for deletion which calls into question other criteria than attestability. When an entry is listed on this page, contributors have one month to show that it is attested. Be aware that sometimes just one or two definitions of an entry are listed here, not the entry as a whole.

An RFV closes after a month with a keep or a delete. If the result is delete, the entry or the contested definitions are removed. When kept, the or  tag is removed, and the definitions should not be tagged again without a very good reason.

Entries are listed on this page by tagging them with.

Archiving: Since the end of 2009, verification debates are archived to the entry's talk page even if the whole entry is deleted. If a word is speedily deleted without much discussion, there's usually no need to archive it; it is the archiver's job to decide if there is enough "usable content" to merit an archive.

=Archived discussions=


 * Archived talk page threads from 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009
 * Archived talk page threads from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014
 * Archived Requests for Verification (discussions of the attestation of individual words) are found on the words' talk pages or WT:RFVA.

Renaming the page
It seems that there is quite a bit of confusion about what RFV is really for. I was confused by it myself here, but someone suggested renaming the page. So I'm making the request here now. —CodeCat 13:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, I was the one that suggested it. Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification should mention the matter too. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming this page via this obscure RFM process. Such a renaming has already been proposed once in BP, and it did not fare all that well. This is a matter for a BP and a vote, as "Wiktionary:Requests for verification" a major page for one of the most important processes Wiktionary has. --Dan Polansky 06:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a formal vote is necessary if there is a discussion on the BP with a clear result. Or even a discussion here, advertised well on the BP, with a clear result. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But Dan, do you oppose the renaming of the page, or simply discussing the renaming here? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support renaming that page, because the word "attestation" (and its varieties: attest, attested) is widely used and is more accurate than "verification" (and its varieties: verify, verified) in this context. However, I don't mind if the name "Wiktionary:Requests for verification" remains forever, as I'm used to it. And, like Dan, I oppose using this obscure RFM process to rename that widely used page. This proposal should undergo no less than a BP discussion and a vote before being implemented. --Daniel. 12:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care. But if it's renamed, the old name and redirects should remain redirects. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "Such a renaming has already been proposed once in BP" I seem to think Daniel. wanted to merge RFV and RFD into one "RFA" (as it were) which was a horrible idea and shot down in flames and rightly so. I've never seen a request to rename RFV on the Beer Parlor. Oh, and obviously the redirects should be kept; is a free code? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RFA is free, so no problems there. -- Prince Kassad 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mglovesfun, you remind me to delete Votes/2010-03/Requests for attestation; done. Although, I disagree that is was a "horrible idea and shot down in flames and rightly so". --Daniel. 10:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever we call the page, we will need to explain it to new users/contributors. "Verification" is 20 times more common in English than "attestation". Attestation is used of languages in linguistics, but I haven't found it in a linguistics glossary. The best definition I have found says that it is concerned with the verification of the existence of word forms. Our practice has been consistent with the text at the top of the RfV page which says we use for meaning as well. Thus it seems to me that we are only substituting one possible confusion for another. Consequently, Oppose. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Couple of things that bother me are:
 * Commonness doesn't seem like a good criterion, otherwise why not Requests for the (the being the most common English word according to the
 * There is an explanation at the top of the RFV page, just I imagine people don't read it. The page is pretty massive, it's hard to blame people who miss it.
 * Mglovesfun (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which word is more likely to be adequate for most users without a look at the top of the page? (I'd bet "verification") Which will most likely not discourage users by seeming technical? (I'd bet "verification") Which is more likely to cause a user to look up the word or look at the top of the page? (I'd bet "attestation") Which is more misleading when looked up in mainspace? (I'd say, it's a draw: neither's common uses correspond to ours.)
 * Which of these considerations gives a clear advantage to renaming the page? Is there any other way we can make it easier for users to understand what we mean by RfV or RfA? DCDuring TALK 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't we want the term that makes people look at the top of the page? (Otoh, that means it should be called Please read the prologue of this page to see what it's all about (WT:PRTPOTPTSWIAA).) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support renaming to Please read the prologue of this page to see what it's all about. —Ruakh TALK 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support, too, renaming to Please read the prologue of this page to see what it's all about. --Daniel 06:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll oppose Please read the prologue of this page to see what it's all about, on the grounds if I don't, it might actually happen. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Support Attestation is the clear, correct term, and the common one in lexicography. Verification is useful to explain its meaning to someone learning about lexicography. One can't even get started without reading our explanation, so what's the point of dumbing down our language? Just look at the complicated, specialized wikitext of any entry; using a correct title here is around 10,000th on the list of biggest obstacles for a new editor. —Michael Z. 2012-01-27 15:50 z 
 * Closing, as per Votes/2012-01/Renaming_requests_for_verification. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

=Current discussions=

Plummeting discussions
Why is it that a lot of these good discussions that excite me seem to not get any input for weeks or even months after getting a bit of input for like a day, while others do? Such as backwards long jump or knurd? Is there a tag we can use to draw attention to certain topics that need more input? Philmonte101 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You can use, but please be patient. It's appropriate after a month of no talk, perhaps. Equinox ◑ 23:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Splitting WT:RFV
Requests for verification becomes lengthy (at the moment 890,026 bytes) which can take some while to load. So how about splitting it? Splitting it up by months doesn't seem to be a good idea, but how about splitting it by scripts: Latin script (English, Latin, etc.) and non-Latin scripts (Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.)? -80.133.113.199 19:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So many of the RFVed terms are English (since this is en.wikt) that I think the Latin-script page would still have the problem. Equinox ◑ 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would go with English and non-English versions. I can help with English, but rarely on non-English requests.  And I would do the same for RFD. - TheDaveRoss 19:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to that idea. Other than maybe French, once in a blue moon, I can't help with anything besides English either. Splitting RFV and RFD would make them so much easier to navigate. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * . — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * . bd2412 T 01:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

For reference:
 * Beer_parlour/2017/April
 * Beer_parlour/2017/May

The picture
All the other discussion pages had one, so we need one here too. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the other request pages (WT:RFD, WT:RFDO, WT:RFM, WT:RFC) don't seem to have them. Most of the so-called "discussion rooms" (WT:TR, WT:ES, WT:BP, WT:GP) do have them, though one discussion room (WT:ID) doesn't and perhaps could use one. I'd be happy to have an image at the top of the request pages too, though—it's a nice decoration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some possibilities? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Permission error
The "make a new section here" link hits a permission error because the page is locked. Can someone please fix it so the link goes to the right page? Spinning Spark  17:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this task. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The link I am talking about is [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification&action=edit&section=new make a new section here]. I'm pretty sure that doesn't work for you because the page is protected and you're not an administrator.  The link goes to entirely the wrong page ever since the RFV page has been split. Spinning Spark  18:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought you were talking about the link that is above, which does work. Why are you trying to edit Requests for verification? If you're talking about the link at Request pages, that can be edited by you or me... What link are you talking about exactly? Where is it placed? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this resolve it? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is this so difficult? I am not trying to edit the Requests for verification page.  That is the whole problem.  The link incorrectly takes you to that page.  It used to be the right page to edit, but has not been since the page was split.  The link I am talking about is under a pipe showing "make a new section here".  That's why I gave you a link to [//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification&action=edit&section=new make a new section here] with a pipe to "make a new section here".  You can find it by searching the page for "make a new section here".  It's in the instructions - right were someone would expect to find instructions on how to make a new section here. Spinning Spark  20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. (well, kind of, it works on the /English and /Non-English subpages but not on the main "disambiguation" one because it makes a link to edit the page you're looking at... not sure how to deal with the link in that case) —suzukaze (t・c) 20:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In other words you haven't fixed the link I'm talking about at all. Why not just remove it altogether, or replace it with a pointer to the template at the top of the page?  It is worse than useless to provide a link that doesn't work, and would be doing something stupid if it did work.  It causes confusion and wastes time. Spinning Spark  21:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Chill man, it's been less than a month since the change was made, of course unexpected problems will crop up. Is it better now? The link is disabled for Requests for verification and works on Requests for verification/English and Requests for verification/Non-English. —suzukaze (t・c) 21:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'm not in the least bothered by there being a mistake on the page. It was my failure to be understood that was winding me up. Spinning Spark  21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Is everything fixed now? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Spinning Spark  13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

rfv templates now require a language parameter
"Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template or " should now be:

"Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template or

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is the template rfv-etym outlawed now?
Because this page doesn't mention it and the text suggests that for each etymology one finds dubious, one should go start a discussion at the Etymology Scriptorium. Which would be an insanely stupid rule making requests for verification harder than normal on a wiki. I may believe that a verification is needed without wanting to be caught up in a discussion. 62.73.69.121 07:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The idea is to add rfv-etym, then click the little + where it says, "(Can this(+) etymology be sourced?)" and start a discussion at the Scriptorium. If you just tag it and don't start a discussion, in all likelihood that tag will just sit there for all eternity and no one will do anything about it. Wiktionary is not as big into drive-by tagging as Wikipedia is. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've also noted that Wiktionary isn't as big into verifiability as Wikipedia is either, and the result is a sea of original research by anonymous online hobbyists in a highly technical sphere that requires specialist competence; 'the idea' is to have to spend weeks debating the merits of the views of every amateur etymologist as a condition for requesting a citation. It would be extremely simple for the tags to be automatically reported at the Scriptorium, but apparently whoever wants to request a source has to be forced to discuss and 'motivate' their request at length - every claim by an unknown editor about the shape of a 6000-year-old reconstructed root is assumed true by default and you are expected to argue why it is so implausible that it even needs - gasp! - sourcing. I wonder why a source should even be requested, the community discussion can still reach the conclusion that it's right and all scholars are wrong. IMO, it's better to tag the original research as such 'for all eternity' than to mislead the public that it has some authoritativeness.--62.73.69.121 10:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)