Wiktionary:Votes/2006-06/Failed RFV

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/June#Failed RFV.

I'm glad Andrew is doing all this work for it, but I have a question. Items that fail RFV should be deleted, right? I often wonder why they still have to go through RFD then. Wouldn't it save some duplicate efforts if failed RFVs just got deleted? The outcome of some re-listings at RFD often gives the impression that items should be kept, while it has been decided at RFV that they should not. — Vildricianus 14:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - something being deleted does not preclude it from being re-added with three citations. No need to triple the overhead. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathan Webley 11:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Enginear 00:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rod (A. Smith) 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not wholeheartedly support. Sorry, been out of action for a while. The reason I have been moving from RFV to RFD is because quite often only when the word is moved, do supporters then come forward, whereas they do not on RFV. It gives a second chance for the word, (but is a hellova lot of work). I have found that once moved to RFD, about half of the words survive anyway. Many of the words on RFV are legitimate and I usually try to authenticate them, but don't necessarily want add the full citations and so forth. If this is the case, I usually just strike them at RFV. What would help a lot is if people fixing words then advise that they have done so at RFV or RFD then strike them on those pages. This would save a lot of time. Andrew massyn 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's nice for those words, but not for the RFV process. If failed RFVs go straight into the trash can, perhaps people will concentrate more on RFV, instead of hoping RFD will save them. That's how it should work after all. I do agree RFV should run more smoothly, but this proposal is one step towards it. — Vildricianus 17:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try doing it this way, but then the RFV page should be edited, because as it reads now, it implies that if words fail rfv, they are put onto the rfd page. Andrew massyn 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we (collectively) are waiting for some nebulous consensus to emerge. Instead, only a minority has commented so far. So I'll go ahead and reword it in a few (unless someone beats me to it.) --Connel MacKenzie 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about this a bit more, I believe that, if we avoid the move to RFD, we should at least have a vote on deletion as the final step of the RFV process (except for tosh, which gets speedy-deleted).

Also, the RFV page intro states that, after cites have been added, {{rfv}} should remain for a week to allow for arguments re their apropriateness. I'm not sure that is useful -- surely, if someone says here that they've cited the word, anyone considering objecting to the cites will look anyway, and if they disagree, can reinstate the tag. And such disputes seem very rare. However, I do feel that the striking of the entry on this page should be done by someone else, and only after about a week, possibly alongside adding a "passed RFV" template to the entry. --Enginear 11:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

In the original BP discussion, this vote was never officially "closed" and Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline says "(4-1) Unclear"/"May not meet quorum". However, for all intents and purposes, I think this vote passed. Nowadays in 2016, when an item fails RFV, it's not then sent to RFD anymore, and it's been like this for ages, so it's as if the voted proposal was in effect. Plus, Wiktionary:Votes/2006-08/Redirects (5-0) is another vote from 2006 that passed with a low quorum, too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]