Template talk:rfquote

durably archived

Durably archived citations are required to meet the criteria for inclusion, but a durably archived quotation might not be the best example of use. Why does this template ask specifically for durable archived quotations?—msh210℠ 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to include non–durably-archived quotations in entries? —Ruakh_TALK 00:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that they're worse than made-up example sentences.—msh210℠ 03:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a door that shouldn't be opened. Otherwise, we get contributors making up sentences on websites, then adding them here. The citations are intended to bolster RFV and CFI, not simply to show use. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but if we're worried about such deceptiveness, then Usenet is a much bigger gap in our defenses, so to speak. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 03:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose not, but they're not necessarily better than made-up example sentences, either; and do we want to encourage the addition of potentially unverifiable content to entries? I see arguments both ways. —Ruakh_TALK 03:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose wants good example sentences, he can use template:rfex. Fair enough.—msh210℠ 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Appearance

Should this be a bit smaller and tidier? It dominates entries a bit. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the intent. Basically, this template means "I don't want to RFV this for some reason, but I think this entry could use some verification." —Ruakh_TALK 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)