Talk:thanatomicrobiome

RFV discussion: October 2014–July 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

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.

---

thanatomicrobiome

There are purported cites in the entry, but each needs to be reviewed to determine whether it is "durably archived" and to be formatted to allow for broad participation in any decisions about whether this merits "hot word" status before it would otherwise be included (after a year has passed), assuming the validity of the cites. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've formatted the citations from print journals. All are from articles reporting on the same piece of research. While I'd say we should keep this for now, the important part in a year will be seeing if other research groups use the word in scientific papers (or if the characters in CSI start profiling victim's thanatomicrobiomes...) Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Are you sure that they are in print editions? In the past, I've assumed that online content provided by a title that was also in print was in print/durably archived. I no longer think such an assumption is justified, but I don't know how to make a determination one way or the other. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  The journal citation: definitely. The New Scientist citation: definitely (it says "This article appeared in print" at the bottom. The Forensics Magazine citation: almost definitely (it's tagged with a reference to the issue it appeared in). In general though, I don't think having an even more restrictive criterion for web citations is really going to improve the quality or reliability of Wiktionary, since we're just going to lose whole swathes of high-quality sources of citations for relatively little gain. If nothing else, it's fair to assume that any reasonably well-trafficked website will be put in the Internet Archive and copied by a hundred spam mirrors. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  That's a matter for WT:BP and even a VOTE. It might be time to revisit the question. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on, we've never made any effort to define 'durably archived'. It wouldn't be revisiting the issue of what durably archived means, it would be a start on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant We have what is more useful than a verbal definition: an operational one: We accept as sources any print work that would be found in a library, any print journal or newspaper, any Usenet group. Folks have made arguments for other things but haven't convinced very many people. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello... does this work? . I am the author of the word "thanatomicrobiome". I created the original web page... however someone keeps changing it... Can we please leave the references as is...?

The other person keeps adding news paper articles... does the rag newspaper "Montgomery Advertiser" count as a real publication? I do not think so.. but I have NOT deleted it. Can we please discuss? panoble@washington.edu Thanks Peter

Here they are:

===References===

• [1] Peter A. Noble, A NSF proposal I wrote: "Life after death: The role and composition of the thanatomicrobiome in the decomposition of mammalian organs", October, 2013.
• [2] Can, I., G.T. Javan, A.E. Pozhitkov and P.A. Noble. Distinctive thanatomicrobiome signatures found in the blood and internal organs of humans. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2014 106: 1-7.
• [3], Peter A. Noble, Introducing the Thanatomicrobiome, MicrobialWorld August 15, 2014
• [4] Anna Williams, Death: the great bacterial takeover, Your death microbiome could catch your killer. New Scientist, August 28, 2014.
• [5] Siouxsie Wiles, Monday Micro – the microbiome of death! SciBlog: Infectious Thoughts, September, 1, 2014.
• [6], Jesse Jenkins, The Death Microbiome: Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Biotechniques - The International Journal for Life Science Method, September 11, 2014.
• [7] Randall Mayes, The Death Microbiome Could Inform Forensic Science And Medicine. Design & Trend, September, 11, 2014.
• [8] Gulnaz Javan, The Dirty World of Body Farm Microbes. Forensic Science Magazine, September 30, 2014.
• [9] Brad Harper, ASU researchers hope to help solve homicides. Montgomery Advertiser, July 8, 2014

  The Montgomery Advertiser is the largest daily newspaper in Alabama and it's won three Pulitzer Prizes, so it definitely counts as a real publication, though here at Wiktionary all that matters to us is that it's durably archived (a term which we haven't formally defined but roughly means you could go to a library and find the publication in question—in other words, we prefer print publications like books, magazines, and newspapers to websites). As for other people changing the entry you started, one of the most basic rules for participating in a wiki like Wiktionary is accepting that other people will edit pages that you start. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The added citations do not include quoted text from the article (evidencing use of the word), so they need checking and filling out. The user adding them has just been putting summaries in his/her own words. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the putative quotations from the entry in the mainspace; no more elegant solution comes to mind. It was only when I read your comment that I realized that these were not really quotations. The items are still in the page history, so the information is not lost, and he who wants to provide proper quotations should have a reasonable easy time doing so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The first two citations on the citations page ("Distinctive thanatomicrobiome", "their thanatomicrobiome") are durable uses, AFAICT, but both are from August 2014. I reckon the thing to do is let this sit in hot-word limbo until late 2015 and then look for current uses. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  I've added two recent citations. This is now cited except that the citations don't span a year, since the earliest one is from less than a year ago: so, like any other hot word, this needs to sit for several more months. (I suppose, in the interim, there's no reason to keep this thread open; the hot word template will tell us when it's time to review the word.) - -sche (discuss) 05:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)