Talk:Photo stand-in

"Sproftacchel" is very likely a fake term and an example of citogenesis
I have removed the term "sproftacchel" from the list of alternative names (diff link). I believe its citation is an example of citogenesis.

Timeline:
 * On February 15, 2021 an IP editor added "Sproftacchel" to the "also called" list.
 * Editors called for this term to be sourced on October 3, 2021 and November 20, 2021.
 * On April 1, 2022 a New Zealand Herald article used the term.
 * On April 14, 2022 an editor added the NZ Herald article as a source for the term.

Google results:

When I Google search for uses of "Sproftacchel" that predate its addition to this article I only get three results. I believe all three of these are newer additions to older pages and don't actually demonstrate the use of the term before February 15, 2021. See below:


 * 1) enricocorte.net/no-light/ Images at the bottom of this page are labeled with "Sproftacchel". But if you look at the URLs of the images you can see that they were all uploaded in April 2022. I used the Wayback Machine and found no evidence of the term on the site prior to 2022.
 * 2) alamy.com A stock photo taken in December 2020 of a photo stand-in is tagged with "sproftacchel". But the page notes that "Captions are provided by our contributors". So this was likely tagged afterwards.
 * 3) facebook.com/comfortstationlogansquare is from 2010 and is listed by Google as being from 2013. But the actual post that uses "Sproftacchel" is from June 21, 2022.

Conclusion

I have found zero evidence that the word "Sproftacchel" was ever used before it was added to this article. If anyone has a verifiable source predating February 15, 2021 please add it. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Jak86, I think I considered the possibility of citogenesis, but it's hard to prove either way and we generally trust reliable sources.Google books returns Interpreting Heritage: A Guide to Planning and Practice by Steve Slack as a result when searching for "sproftacchel", published in 2021 by Routledge. No quote, but it's probably in there as it's mentioned on Steve Slack's blog. There's an entry on Urban Dictionary from February 17, 2021 by "bored boyfriend". (just two days after our IP and his only contribution to UD) Another Google Books result is The Midnight Fair by Gideon Sterer, published by Candlewick Press in 2021. Again, no quote, but I believe the term is in there as the review in this magazine from Books for Keeps also uses the word. And this consultation report from islington.gov.uk also uses the word. And this town meeting agenda from the Hingham Town Council doesn't even bother to explain what a "sproftacchel" is. this random report mentions Wikipedia as its source but then continues to use the term "sproftacchel" in running text, conveying meaning. And the City of Lincoln council used the word as well. And here we have "Sproftacchel Park". It's all after our IP, but this is language. This may already be enough for an entry on Wiktionary.And what's interesting is that Google books also returns other books by Gideon Sterer that do predate our IP, but no quotes and buying those books just to see if they contain the word seems a bit much, but there's a chance Sterer is the original source. At any rate, self-fulfilling prophecy or not, photo stand-ins are called sproftacchels by various sources now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Jak86, hmm, interesting: The Midnight Fair was published on 2 February 2021 (Kirkus Reviews, WSJ), before our IP. Though now I wonder again, will that book contain the word? The two reviews that mention "sproftacchel" are from 2022 after all. Would Google books return The Midnight Fair because its reviews mention "sproftacchel"?Update: several reviews on Amazon say The Midnight Fair is wordless. This would be different from Sterer's earlier work, but the few images from inside the book I found suggest it's correct. This would suggest that Google Books indeed returns results based on content from reviews. (and/or some random artificial stupidity) That explains why Google Books often has so many worthless results without preview.. Okay, citogenesis it is.Update 2: The review from Books for Keeps also mentions Professional Crocodile by Giovanna Zoboli, another quoteless book result from Google Books. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the gbooks snippet on the results list does not contain the search term, that nearly always means its not in the book in my experience. It's just google offering books that it thinks might be related to what you are looking for. SpinningSpark 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wizzito, Photo stand-in (Diff 1102286724) consisted of statements without any conclusion. I was careful to avoid saying "this is a ghost word from Wikipedia" because that would be original research. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is that there's no reliable sources as of yet that are stating that this term is fake/from Wikipedia/whatever. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  03:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wizzito, the text didn't say it was. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - I probably should have worded my edit summary better than just "original research?", but my main problems are:
 * 1. that there are no reliable sources as of yet that explicitly state that this term is from Wikipedia. You cite the Wikipedia diff as a source for "The oldest currently known source of this synonym is a contribution to the English Wikipedia from February 2021" (which I think says/implies that "this term is from Wikipedia"); I'm also pretty sure citing Wikipedia is not allowed.
 * 2. that there is still the possibility of synthesis. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  23:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)