Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Response to rfv. entry just started one minute ago, need time to complete all references...thanks. Laborynth 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about the rfv. It does not signal immediate deletion of the entry. You have a full month to find the requisite three citations. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any further comments on the rfv page, what progress on acceptance? What happens now? Laborynth 17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be insufficient information at present for any of the citations to meet wiktionary attestation standards. The citations need to be for the definition given and in durably archived verifiable media. See headings I've added on Citations:amerigine. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason for removing my cite for this word is unclear, in fact your action says "moved"...moved where. Can you explain for my edification? Meksikatsi 12:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my failure to save my completed edit. I have recreated it, using the entry's history. The reclassification is because it is not possible to verify the publisher. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Title link reapplied. Publisher is verifiable thru a search Can we reclass this cite? Meksikatsi 13:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Link given does not say that this is a publisher, nor can I find a library that has this book or a few of the others. Usually self-published works don't count. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
US Library of congress doesn't have Amerigine, afaict. Do you have an ISBN number for it? DCDuring TALK 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Not in Worldcat, either. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
None of the so-called books mentioned in the citation page is in the British Library catalogue. SemperBlotto 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


The discussion concerning the publisher of some of the works cited has been moved to my talk page because it is not directly relevant until resolved to this entry. There may also be a related Beer Parlor discussion. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The free copyright issue has been resolved to a certain extent and discussion was moved to and is still active at my talk page for any interested. Further publications will continue to be added for this publisher that may shed light in future on this article. Meksikatsi 03:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV — failed[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. 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.

Protologism? All the other related entries by the same author seem suspect as well. Many interwiki links lead nowhere. SemperBlotto 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Note the existence of w:amerigine, the fact that the same user created it, and the fact that it is his only creation on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary. The work cited in the WP article does not appear to mentioned anywhere on the Web, so even if it exists at all it is clearly not in popular usage. Equinox 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If Protologism then aborigine and all related entries should be classified as such also. Laborynth 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Nearly 3,000 Google books hits for aborigine, zilch for this one. SemperBlotto 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

citation added Laborynth 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

citation page fixed, revised, and re-entered Laborynth 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The first three of which lead to "not found" messages. SemperBlotto 22:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • But these three citations are from published works in my library, from which the impetus for the creation of the entry came. I don't understand why a forum or blog entry would be more important or valid than a published work, even if it isn't referenced via wikimedia. There are many examples of this word to be found with a google search. It seems to me that there would be some help on this in the face of so many citations, instead of a determined effort to squash an obviously worthy addition to the wiktionary. I can just keep on adding the internet-based citations that are all part of the public domain for the last 30 years ad infinitum if you want or type the entire reference into an entry. But I believe the rfv has been satisfied. Laborynth 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If the cites were good, most would be for the word [[ameriginal]]. Our units of citation are words (actually "lemmas" and their inflected forms), not concepts. We need verifiable citations from durably archived sources, like books, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, newspaper and magazine articles, and Usenet. Blogs and forums are not demonstrably durably archived to our satisfaction. My own efforts only found one Usenet citation for "[[Ameriginal]]" and one for "[[Amerigeines]]" since Jan. 1981. That would leave each two short. To save yourself time look at the Google limited-domain search under the labels News, Books, Scholar, and Groups. If you have access to printed works that have not been made available online, provide the citations. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the mentioned, the first three citations are for printed works in my library without access online. How does one go about getting those accepted? Laborynth 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. Full bibliographic information that would allow someone to locate a copy in a library would be a start. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The first two ("1979") citations now point to the Wikipedia entry created by the same person. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia wasn't around in 1979. SemperBlotto 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Only because I don't quite know what I'm doing...yet. lol! In any case, citations have been updated. Laborynth 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Due to publications my project is adding to Wikisource, which are common to your article, some of your cites may now be valid. You can check out the Savant discussion on my talk page and further information and links in the Savant article. I will be adding other works as time goes by so check back. It would be interesting and possibly helpful to know how these works came to be in your library. Meksikatsi 04:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Gone for a few days and to find this support is much appreciated. I'll take a look at the citations and sources and change the article as the additions permit. Meanwhile, the books of poetry and other things I have came from a free library that was held every few weeks when I lived in Pacific Grove, California, some years ago. I think it was the Monterey County Library that held the event and the publisher of the local poetry magazine gave these books of poetry free to interested parties. Laborynth 01:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification of book source. This jives with current information on this publisher. Letter from current editor sheds additional light and is entered in Savant talk page. Meksikatsi TALK 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Wiki definition: The term protologism is a term invented to refer to a newly created and proposed word which has not yet gained acceptance. This definition does not seem to fit here since the word amerigine has obviously been in use since 1961 and has been shown to have continuous usage until the present. Even though all citations are not durably archived, there are many of them and enough citations are valid to satisfy our criteria for inclusion. Since this word has definitely not been "newly created" and has gained acceptance as shown by multiple cites over 30 years, the rfv has been removed. Meksikatsi TALK 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)