Talk:havere
Latest comment: 5 years ago by DCDuring in topic RFV discussion: April–May 2019
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
Any takers? (I thought that Italian avere came directly from Latin habere) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Cited by Aearthrise on the talk page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Any chance of them being properly formatted as citations? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Links are not cites! - TheDaveRoss 19:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like him to format them properly, but yes, links are cites, and have used them to pass RFVs in the past. See for example Talk:cabrón, from back before I had spent time in a Spanish-speaking country and didn't feel confident enough to add and translate cites that I had found. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I completely disagree, and if I were closing an RFV with no actual citations (that is text containing the term transposed from a durably archived source) I would not pass it without converting the links into actual citations. Links can break, sentences of text with clear descriptions of sources cannot. Links are not cites. - TheDaveRoss 20:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- To get to the point, google books has thousands of durably archived examples of havere and its conjugations. We should end this discussion. Aearthrise (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- To get to the real point. Our entries should make it easy for users to see the attestation and usage examples in each entry, maintaining a consistent interface. That means that citations should be formatted by our standards. Metaknowledge had what we might view as a good excuse for not conforming in that way, at least at the time. Does Aearthrise have a good excuse? DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Non sequitur. The rfv for the word havere has more than 3 durably archived sources. If you would like to know about what happened on 19/4/2019, please contact me on my talk page. Aearthrise (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't care about users, perhaps you could amuse yourself at a site that doesn't have any. You would find that you wouldn't even need an internet connection for that. DCDuring (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- None of this unpleasantness would have occurred had you not removed the RfV tag out of process. Given your fairly long participation here, I'd have thought you'd be aware of the way we review entries and definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- DcDuring, if you would like to discuss what happened on 19/4/2019, please contact me on my talk page. I'd be happy to respond to any doubts that you have. Aearthrise (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SemperBlotto,@Metaknowledge,@TheDaveRoss,@DCDuring Unless any of you have opposition to havere being a valid word, by 26/4/2019 at 14:00, I will remove the rfv tag. Aearthrise (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aearthrise, don't do that. Wait for the RFV to be closed in the usual manner. It's not a rush. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge The rfv process from what I have witnessed takes a whole year. Havere already has its verification evidence; the summary of this conversation can be added to the discussion page in the year from now. Aearthrise (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aearthrise: It usually takes a month; we will often leave terms for longer instead of failing them in hopes of saving an entry, though. But this is really not up for discussion. I've told you not to remove the tag, and if you can't understand why, we can discuss this further on my talk page, but you need to hold off on action. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: Hopefully it will be only a month; from my experience it takes much longer. I did read your message from the 26 of April, 2019, "don't do that. Wait for the RFV to be closed in the usual manner. It's not a rush.", but I thank for taking the time to reiterate. Aearthrise (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I have sent a message on your talk page. Aearthrise (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SemperBlotto,@Metaknowledge,@TheDaveRoss,@DCDuring It has been a month since the RFV has been added to the word havere. I make a humble request that the RFV tag be removed. 😊 Aearthrise (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- As it stands now, removing the RfV would come with deleting the entry as the entry needs another cite. DCDuring (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- @SemperBlotto,@Metaknowledge,@TheDaveRoss,@DCDuring It has been a month since the RFV has been added to the word havere. I make a humble request that the RFV tag be removed. 😊 Aearthrise (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: I have sent a message on your talk page. Aearthrise (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: Hopefully it will be only a month; from my experience it takes much longer. I did read your message from the 26 of April, 2019, "don't do that. Wait for the RFV to be closed in the usual manner. It's not a rush.", but I thank for taking the time to reiterate. Aearthrise (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aearthrise: It usually takes a month; we will often leave terms for longer instead of failing them in hopes of saving an entry, though. But this is really not up for discussion. I've told you not to remove the tag, and if you can't understand why, we can discuss this further on my talk page, but you need to hold off on action. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge The rfv process from what I have witnessed takes a whole year. Havere already has its verification evidence; the summary of this conversation can be added to the discussion page in the year from now. Aearthrise (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aearthrise, don't do that. Wait for the RFV to be closed in the usual manner. It's not a rush. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SemperBlotto,@Metaknowledge,@TheDaveRoss,@DCDuring Unless any of you have opposition to havere being a valid word, by 26/4/2019 at 14:00, I will remove the rfv tag. Aearthrise (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- DcDuring, if you would like to discuss what happened on 19/4/2019, please contact me on my talk page. I'd be happy to respond to any doubts that you have. Aearthrise (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Non sequitur. The rfv for the word havere has more than 3 durably archived sources. If you would like to know about what happened on 19/4/2019, please contact me on my talk page. Aearthrise (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- To get to the real point. Our entries should make it easy for users to see the attestation and usage examples in each entry, maintaining a consistent interface. That means that citations should be formatted by our standards. Metaknowledge had what we might view as a good excuse for not conforming in that way, at least at the time. Does Aearthrise have a good excuse? DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- To get to the point, google books has thousands of durably archived examples of havere and its conjugations. We should end this discussion. Aearthrise (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- I completely disagree, and if I were closing an RFV with no actual citations (that is text containing the term transposed from a durably archived source) I would not pass it without converting the links into actual citations. Links can break, sentences of text with clear descriptions of sources cannot. Links are not cites. - TheDaveRoss 20:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like him to format them properly, but yes, links are cites, and have used them to pass RFVs in the past. See for example Talk:cabrón, from back before I had spent time in a Spanish-speaking country and didn't feel confident enough to add and translate cites that I had found. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DCDuring there are lots of cites on the cites page, are you saying those are not valid or did you not see them? - TheDaveRoss 12:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- DCD is being rather pedantic and pointing out that nly two cites were copied from the Citations page to the main page. His statement is incorrect anyway, because cites on the Citations page are just as valid. RFV passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't look at the Citations page. Out of sight; out of mind. DCDuring (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- DCD is being rather pedantic and pointing out that nly two cites were copied from the Citations page to the main page. His statement is incorrect anyway, because cites on the Citations page are just as valid. RFV passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)