Wiktionary:Votes/2007-12/RFV idiomatic note

Whether to add a note about idiomaticity to the RFV box edit

Voting on: Whether to add the following content to Template:RFV:

{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|=<br />'''Note to poster:''' If you are disputing the idiomaticity of a phrase, please use {{temp|RFD}} to place it on [[WT:RFD|requests for deletion]] instead.}}

For your convenience, here is what the RFV box looks like without the added code...

This page has been listed on the requests for verification list. (Add entry to list.) It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If evidence is not provided within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

...and with the added code:

This page has been listed on the requests for verification list. (Add entry to list.)
It has been suggested that this entry might not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If evidence is not provided within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

Note to poster: If you are disputing the idiomaticity of a phrase, please use {{RFD}} to place it on requests for deletion instead.

And here is what the RFV box looks like, in each case respectively, with default Firefox configurations on a small monitor:

Vote ends: 18 Dec 07
Vote started: 4 Dec 07
Discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Recent changes to Template:RFV

Support edit

(Vote here if you desire the extra note-to-poster to be added)

Oppose edit

(Vote here if you don't)

Oppose Language Lover 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) For reasons at the discussion page. The change adds clutter irrelevant to our core userbase. The RFV box itself is not the appropriate place to put the content in question. If it's a note to the poster, why would someone just browsing the dictionary care?[reply]
I don't know, why does it exist on {{RFD}}? I added it because I've noted that even long-term contributors are still making this mistake, and I wanted the distinction to be clearer. It could do without the whitespace though. DAVilla 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The note is on RFD for two reasons: 1) initially, accepting RFV was not even likely by this community, 2) concern for ("be nice to") lost Wikipedians. Since they don't use "rfd" anymore (nor have they for a couple years) that notice should probably go. Long term contributors will continue to make such mistakes - simply moving it (soft-linked) is the way to treat such situations. --Connel MacKenzie 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose EncycloPetey 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) - This is backwards. We shouldn't place a notice about which template to use into the template itself. Chances are they won't see the message until after inserting the template (if they read it). Then they have to understand what our little community means by (deprecated template usage) idiomaticity. This information should appear on a page instrucing users in the correct application of templates, not in the template itself. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

Abstain Widsith 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Don't see any real need for it. If we do use it, we should say "if you are disputing whether a phrase is idiomatic" rather than using such an awkward word as idiomaticity. Widsith 13:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Okay Language Lover, the handful of responses are enough to convince me. I'm closing your vote early and reverting the change. I don't see the need to make people read all of this. DAVilla 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]