Talk:Acela Republican

RFV discussion: October–November 2016

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.

---

Acela Republican

Roughly 150 Google Web hits. Not enough in Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

150? I got 744. Purplebackpack89 13:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added two cites. Purplebackpack89 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Cited Purplebackpack89 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  No citations from durably archived media in entry. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  First off, wrong. One of the websites is a mirror of a print magazine. Secondly, who cares? It's a word, ain't it? It's used, ain't it? There are dozens of other cites from the internet out there that could be used if need be. Also, please do not refactor my comments. Purplebackpack89 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  Why not propose a vote (everyone else is doing it.)? You could propose that we remove the requirement that attestation be from durably archived media, which proposal has been discussed previously, but not in the past few months. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  Why not actually do some work on trying to cite this, instead of criticizing everything I do and violating guidelines by refactoring my comments? This has three citations. If you don't like them, find some ones you do like. Until then, it's cited. Thank you for your cooperation. Purplebackpack89 16:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  Why don't you add some taxonomic names or vernacular names of organisms?

  More specifically to the point, why do you add terms that no dictionary has without making sure that you have valid attestation? Is that because you don't know the rules, choose not to conform to them, or don't know how? Can't you find more productive work to do here? Why is it that you expect others to compensate for the deficiencies exhibited by the entries you add? DCDuring TALK 00:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  Before I answer that question, can you solemnly swear that every single definition you've ever created has been created with citations? I thought not. There's no requirement that citations must be added as soon as an entry has been created, and I doubt there ever will be. I add words that have been used in various places, usually on the Internet. The words I add generally have many uses on the Internet. Whether or not another dictionary has them is irrelevant.

  As for my request that you actually do something about this instead of being a rules Nazi and demanding I add more citations after I've already added some while you've done nothing to improve this particular entry except complain about what I've been doing, I stand by that. The way you're acting is unhelpful. Purplebackpack89 05:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89: hi. I’d appreciate it if you never compared a harmless contributor to racist killers who suppressed everybody’s autonomy. Cheers, — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 08:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  Well, he's suppressing my autonomy... Purplebackpack89 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  That’s not good enough. Your participation in this project is always voluntary, but residency in Europe was (and still is) compulsory for most of the sapiens there. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Still Uncited. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  You know how overly bureaucratic and not in the spirit of all things Wikis stand for you are right now? It's clear that the word has been used many times in various places, and you still want to get rid of it. Have you even bothered to look at where it's been used? If not, you should either look at where it's been used, or quit this discussion. Purplebackpack89 05:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No one ever said anyone has to provide 3 durably-archived citations. Of course, the entry will be deleted- but who cares? None of us do. You're the one who wants to keep the entry, so you would seem to be the logical person to look for cites. As for all that other stuff about Equinox and DCDuring and bureaucracy and yada-yada-yada: please show the part of CFI that those apply to- otherwise the rest of us will just write them off as attempts to divert attention from the the fact that you don't have anything. You may not like the rules- but those are the rules. Oh, and as far as all of the rfv's you just spammed us with: all of those terms are present in dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of durably-archived sources, even if they haven't been specifically documented in the entry yet. Your term isn't- though it may yet barely squeak by. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is advisable to have citations in advance for terms or definitions not in any dictionary, especially neologisms. The citations are often more illustrative of meaning and context than our definitions, labels, and usage notes.

Taxonomic terms are almost guaranteed to have citations available. Vernacular names have no such guarantee, especially if we don't accept mentions. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring If you believe citations should be done in advance, start a BP discussion or a vote about it. But there will never be a rule that exempts words like your uncited taxonomic entries while requiring citations for my political term.

@Chuck Entz It's a total stretch to say "I don't have anything". I have one citation that appeared in a magazine as well as online, so that's durable. I have two non-durable citations. I could have dozens more non-durable citations. I don't think it's fair that something like that should be deleted, and I am displeased at how flippant you are about "of course, this is going to get deleted" when it's clear the word has been used. Not really giving a damn about whether an entry lives or dies seems to me to not be caring about improving people's knowledge. And I don't think it's fair that DCDuring can criticize me over and over without actually trying to improve the entry himself, especially since he has recently created dozens and dozens of articles with no citations of their own. If he's going to expect me to cite my entries on creation (and he seems to want to above), the least he can do is model good behavior by citing his own. Purplebackpack89 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The greatest improvement for your entries is often their deletion.

Why would I want special treatment for taxonomic names? Just as we don't usually waste time challenging words or definitions that appear in a dictionary, there is little reason to challenge taxonomic names, unless the name seems misspelled or there is other reason to suspect it is badly defined, a joke or hoax (eg Ba humbugi, etc. I am in the process of checking taxonomic names for misspellings myself. That is one reason why I look at multiple taxonomic databases for taxonomic entries, especially those I've added or that are unreferenced. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

After having had one or two of my early entries deleted, I now never create an entry without doing a quick check of Google Books and Google Groups to see if it could be cited. I don't bother with actually adding cites to the entry, but I'm generally confident that the entry would survive rfv. I think that's what DCuring is asking for. Not only does that save a lot of stress for me and imposition on others, it also gives me a better idea of usage, which makes for a better entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not cited, three citations from the same author = not independent. Of course, these do count as one cite. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Nate Silver used it here "natesilver: If you asked 100 Acela Republicans whether they’d take Fiorina as their nominee if it guaranteed there was no chance of Trump, what would they say?" (The use links to the Rick Wilson piece). - TheDaveRoss 15:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not durably archived? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this might actually be SoP, "Acela" being used as an adjective to refer to the Northeast corridor of the US, including DC, NYC, Boston, Philadelphia. I see references to the "Acela Primary" and "Acela Corridor" in addition to "Acela Republican." - TheDaveRoss 20:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I still say it is ridiculous that this failed RFV. TBH, any word from 2010 or later should allow online citations of any stripe! Purplebackpack89 21:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)