User talk:Noprimenumbers

All you need to know is here is in the following welcome links. SemperBlotto 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

Attestation

I don't know for sure whether demanufacture currently meets WT:CFI. It is simply a question of whether it is has been in use long enough in each sense given in its entry as shown by its use in durably archived sources. As a practical matter, the convenient durably archived sources are Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar, and Usenet. We prefer the sources that do not require any kind of subscription. See the talk pages for {{quote-book}}, {{quote-news}}, {{quote-newsgroup}}, and {{quote-journal}} for a way to get quotes into the right format. If you don't get it right, someone will probably fix it anyway. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also for a newish term like this, we need quotes that don't include "demanufacture" in quotes. It needs to be used in running text, preferably without requiring a definition at its first use in the document cited. Otherwise terms that a small group of authors invent or define idiosyncratically could gain entry despite their lack of real use. That may mean that the best source would be something written for a technical audience or for green insiders. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking into the above. Should durable sources also include usage in governmental documents that are open to public review? Of course only those documents that can be identifiable as endurable for use in rule making. If not authoritative a definition should be as close to being authoritative as possible. Noprimenumbers 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to avoid the need to make invidious comparisons between governments with respect to their reliability and permanence, and their willingness to fund "permanent" archiving, we don't seem to take any document lodged on any government site as durably archived. I think this may be an inheritance from WP. So for this purpose, I wouldn't rely on government documents for attestation, though they might be useful to illustrate certain aspects of usage. This is a description of our current attitude and practice as I understand it, but, as I write this I wonder whether I am right and whether the same conditions apply now as when the practice evolved. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it that way... Even though there are written records from past governments it is through the scholar that these records gain a permanence. It would take far more work than desirable to qualify a single governmental record as durable. So using a governmental document should be relegated to showing a practice of usage at the most.

The only possible exception could be where one governmental body is considered as being authoritative on a subject by general consensus. I am sorry I have no examples to show for this.Noprimenumbers 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)