Talk:aloisiite
RFV discussion[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Surely not. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Contributions by this IP have all been good. This word does exist, but the mineral itself is not recognized internationally. However from our point of view, if it can be found in durably archived sources (which is the case), then it should be included. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- B.g.c brings up a lot of hits, but they mostly seem to be lists of minerals, not real usages of the word.--Prosfilaes 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Specialist vocabulary merits an entry. C.f. names of chemical compounds. -- ALGRIF talk 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, I was just reacting to the bizarre spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Specialist vocabulary merits an entry. C.f. names of chemical compounds. -- ALGRIF talk 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Striking, since Mglovesfun has removed the tag from the entry. (Indeed, his "speedy keep" above seems not to have been a vote, but rather an explanation of what he was about to do.) I'll add {{rfquote}}. —RuakhTALK 19:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
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.
Occurs in chemical lists/dictionaries, but not so much in running text. I added the best citation I could find. A lot of the results on Google Books are just references to the title of the paper that introduced it, Colomba (1908), but the original article is in Italian; dunno if we want to count those references.
Another potential citation is [1], but it's sort of mentiony since it's talking about the terminology. If we count this, at least one more good quotation is needed. 98.170.164.88 05:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- COPYVIO, I'm afraid. At the very least, it should be reworded. DCDuring (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Failed. - TheDaveRoss 18:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)