Talk:copy

Copyible/Copyable
Add how one is supposed to spell "the document is not copyable with an ordinary Xerox machine." Jidanni 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * copyable is normal, but copiable is also seen. "copyible" would seem to be wrong. SemperBlotto 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Radio
I've added a citation that shows copy as in copy that is used sometimes as a noun. 81.68.255.36 20:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

sense 2 : of inferior quality
Is this necessary of inferior quality? I mean, we are used to see copy of rich brand products to a lower quality, but is this a generality?

A not famous brand imitating another not famous brand but with a better material/technology (imitating because they figured out that it is an opportunity or that the product/the design is a good idea), it is not a copy? A famous French movie picturing that is called "La vérité si je mens".


 * I agree. I've added "sometimes" as a quick fix. This might actually need merging with sense 1 somehow. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Any form of copying is wrong in the absolute. For example, someone is wrong telling God that they are going to copy God, as there is only one God. As such, any copy, immaterial of technology improvement is in the absolute, inferior, and will eventually, for example, fall apart. I suggest someone change the article to reflect a better truth. Jondeanmack (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Fifth Noun Definition's Plural is Different from the Rest
The plural of "copy," as in the output of copywriter, is "copy," not "copies." So I think that should be indicated somewhere, but I'm unsure of how to do that properly. This problem might apply to other definitions as well. MaybePotatoes (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)