Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence. Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
lecio, macister: The reference is English, and the examples might be theoretical, like having Caius (= Gaius/Gajus) attested and giving another word changed in the same as example.
deiuos: Should be DEIVOS or uncapitalised - even with the modern distinction of u (vowel) and v (consonant) - deivos, which is also more similar to dīvus (ei -> ī, -os -> -us). w:History of Latin gives w:Duenos inscription as source and it has a V.
The glyph ‹G› was only introduced during the 3rd century BCE, so it can obviously not have been used in older texts. Assuming that the spellings LECIO and MACISTER can be attested, it is strange to single those out as having entries just because they happen to be mentioned in the 1876 Encyclopædia Britannica. (Actually, the Duenos inscription referenced above contains the word VIRCO, which should be read as virgo.) Apart from the oddity of singling out these two, it is IMO incorrect to state this is an “alternative form”. It is an alternative graphemic representation. As a matter of policy, we do not list MVS as alternative of Latin mus, nor Ϲιμων(Simōn) as an alternative of Ancient Greek Σίμων, even though these graphemic representations can be attested. So it is not quite clear what purpose is served by asking for verification. As to deiuos, I think we should follow the convention we have for Latin of representing consonantal U/V by ‹v›. Again, this is a policy issue, not one of verification. --Lambiam20:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Deiuos has been moved to deivos; this is the correct course of action. (It should not be all-caps; we don't do that for Latin or OTHER languages unless a term is usually all-caps even in case-sensitive text, like MBA and maybe LORD—cf. Talk:LORD.) For the other terms: if they are attested in spellings with c (something to determine here at RFV), it's at least debatable whether they should have entries. For English, we made (and have subsequently much discussed) the decision to keep things like vp, using {{obsolete typography of}}, because u and v are different letters and we can't necessarily expect someone who sees one to figure out to look up the other. OTOH, we don't do that for Latin u and v, and c and g were not initially contrastive, so maybe deleting c spellings is fine. Such a decision should be recorded at Wiktionary:About Latin#Orthography_for_Latin_entries, ideally after agreement from other Latin editors. - -sche(discuss)23:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Incidentally, if we have actually formalized that "consonantal u" forms should not be included (unclear), then Talk:uacuus and dies Iouis should be revisited; whereas if we generally keep such things as alternative forms, then deiuos should also be kept (if attested?). - -sche(discuss)04:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
AFAIK, the same argument (that u and v are now contrastive letters) does allow vacvvs, unless Latin editors have reached a different consensus for Latin specifically. All-cap-italizations are disallowed by a different general rule, the one that also led to e.g. THE and THIS being deleted in English. - -sche(discuss)17:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
qv might be a more complicated matter because it's /kw/ /kv/ and can be used with the common distinction of u (vowel) and v (consonant), similar to other languages' lingvist and not linguist. As for the cover: It's "QVEENE" on the title, but what's in the text? Because of "twelue", I assume "queene" or "Queene", i.e. V as capital and u as non-capital (no U and no v). --B-Fahrer (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Basically, I think the arguments against vs for this continue to be summed up well by the exchange I quoted on the last of those talk pages: Mglovesfun saying "I just reject the idea that vp is an obsolete spelling of up. The spelling is identical, the difference is encoding, not spelling." and Widsith responding "And you don't think it's a problem that the ‘encoding’ happens to be in the form of a different existing letter of the alphabet?" - -sche(discuss)23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
