Talk:Obamney

Obamney
Per CFI, are there cites of this spanning at least a year? (see also, all this user's other contributions) < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with it?
 * "The Vision Of Obamney" (2007)
 * "Obamney or Neuter?" (2011)
 * "Obamney vs Obamney" (2012)
 * I think you've forgotten that Mitt Romney ran for president in 2008.
 * 76.65.128.132 08:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are these durably archived (whatever that means)? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone could print the webpage out and place it in Wiktionary's office (wherever that is)? Wiktionary needs to set up a digital archive for website snapshots to "archive" things as photos, considering that we're into the web age. Archive.org has this video recording: http://www.archive.org/details/20120112NewWorldNextWeek
 * "Obamney's indie blues" (2012) -- is Politico.com considered durable?
 * "Obamney postcard" -- or Flickr?
 * 76.65.128.132 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree with you, durably archived ought to mean just that, but to us it seems to mean "published sources and Usenet", and I have no idea why. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki already has the capability of automatically archiving webpages when needed (but I don't know the precise necessary conditions). Therefore, if we want any webpage to be durably archived, we can. Lmaltier 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that weird, can you point to the MediaWiki documentation page for that? It sounds intriguing. (are you sure that doesn't mean the automatic storage of page revisions of MediaWiki wiki pages of the wiki running the instance of MediaWiki? (ie. page history) ) 76.65.128.132 06:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found this page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArchiveLinks. Lmaltier 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, on fr.wikt, I've already seen external links transformed into two links (normal link + link to the archived page). Lmaltier 18:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Another issue beyond durable archiving is that of manipulability. Web pages can be introduced with usage instances sufficient to meet our usage criteria by a single person with access to multiple web pages. Thus, completely imaginary words supporting any ideological, political, personal, or other objective can gain whatever measure of legitimacy a Wiktionary entry would offer. Our entries could thus have less credibility than Urban Dictionary in which definitions at least bear the record of the votes by users, often a large number of them. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In almost all cases, there can be no suspicion. In exceptional other cases, when there might be a doubt, when manipulation is suspected, it's better not to include the word. Lmaltier 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm googling several forum posts contrasting Obamney with Obama, clearly using it as an epithet for specifically:
 * I don't see many uses of Obamney for Obama and Romney simultaneously, like:
 * I boggled at this four-headed monster:
 * I guess some people would rather regard all their political opponents as a single enemy, rather than recognize any differences between them. ~ Robin 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I boggled at this four-headed monster:
 * I guess some people would rather regard all their political opponents as a single enemy, rather than recognize any differences between them. ~ Robin 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess some people would rather regard all their political opponents as a single enemy, rather than recognize any differences between them. ~ Robin 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)