Talk:physible

Additive manufacturing
Here is a book that has become the seminal go-to text for the overall process of additive manufacturing Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing. Perhaps we should start a Wikitionary article on additive manufacturing as well, as the technology and term in the Engineering discipline has been around for three or more years now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Additive manufacturing is not the correct term here. A physible object can be manufactured as a physical object using many any number of manufacturing processes. The key word is "3D printer" not "additive manufacturing." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing#Processes 63.241.111.230

RFV discussion: November 2013–June 2014
“a data object that is able, and feasible, to become a physical object using an additive manufacturing process such as with a 3D printer” — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

N2e (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3D Printers are Only the Vanguard for the Era of the Physible, Silicon Angle, January 2012.
 * Highlights Of The Pirate Bay's 'Physibles' Section: The 3D-Printable Chris Dodd, TechDirt, March 2012.
 * Piracy, Printing & a New Era of Manufacturing, by Chris Fox, Managing Editor, Product Design and Development.
 * Replicator World, October 2013 edition]


 * Please read WT:CFI. Blogs and online articles are not valid, and the citations must span a year. — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've got it (barely) cited.
 * Also, there are a surprising number of uses in edited works of the spelling where I would expect feasible, especially by authors who may be non-native speakers. Is there a reason for this apart from homophony? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * *near homophony --WikiTiki89 16:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The third cite is a mention (and so is the first, but the term is used in the title). — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's a common misspelling of the noun 'feasible' is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting it. I see the corresponding error for feasibility, too, but it is not common relative to anything, whereas physible as a misspelling is more common than the challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The first Google books hit for me has "It is a realm where you behold the invisible and turn it into physible." I can't tell if it's a misspelling of visible: or just a pun. --WikiTiki89 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Physible and visible are phonologically identical apart from the first consonant sound, but the spelling is different enough I strongly suspect this to be wordplay not a spelling mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur completely. Rather explicitly a variation (perhaps what you call "wordplay") that is intentional, and receiving acceptance and use within the 3D printing and additive manufacturing community.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2015–February 2016
Rfv-sense "Able to be made physical". I looked only very cursorily at GBS but saw nothing. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a number of cites:
 * They are all Indian, so I suspect that it may be dialectical. The only non-Indian citation I could find was this:
 * which doesn't seem to support the supplied meaning, since that hackers already have physical form. Kiwima (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * These would need to be clearly differentiated from the first sense of a misspelling of feasible - try reading it as either "physible" or "feasible" per cite. In the contexts of many of those cites, I would expect "feasible", since there doesn't seem to be anything particularly physical that is being talked about therein. That retro physible hacker cite makes me think of the noun sense related to 3D printing. Nibiko (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nibiko. The 1980, 2001, and 2004 cites in particular, because of the meanings of the adjectives with which physible are coordinated, seem to be about as good cites of the misspelling as we are likely to get. The 2005 citation is only slightly more ambiguous. What a delightful misspelling! DCDuring TALK 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could call it a rare misspelling. However it should be included even as a rare misspelling because it's not obvious what it's a misspelling of. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is, is it a misspelling, or is it an instance of the meaning about capable of being made physical. I tend to lean toward the latter, while it seems that you lean toward the former. Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We need unambiguous cites to attest whatever definitions we keep. I certainly don't see the cites before 2014 supporting either the digital sense or the challenged sense. I would have thought that we could agree on them unambiguously supporting a misspelling. Apparently not.
 * The only definition we have either from outside sources or with unambiguous citations is the neologistic one for a digital object that can be rendered into 3(4?)-dimensional physical form. All of the cites above, except the one from 2014, precede the rise of the digital->3-d sense, so they cannot be generalizations of that sense. It seems wildly implausible that physible could be used in general usage without someone suggesting a definition nearby, as it is a formation that violates normal morphology. The explanation that would best satisfy Occam would be that it is a misspelling that for some reason happens more readily in India than elsewhere. If physible had appeared in some Indian works on philosophy or spiritualism, I could have accepted the definition under challenge, but that is not the case. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it's feasible with the spelling altered by folk etymology. It probably arose in India because first-language English-speakers would probably think of physible as rhyming with visible, or perhaps sizable, and there are a lot of second-language speakers in India. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially with DCDuring's comments. The citations seem to be meaning (and misspelling) feasible. By my ken, the "able to be made physical" since fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is, is it a misspelling, or is it an instance of the meaning about capable of being made physical. I tend to lean toward the latter, while it seems that you lean toward the former. Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We need unambiguous cites to attest whatever definitions we keep. I certainly don't see the cites before 2014 supporting either the digital sense or the challenged sense. I would have thought that we could agree on them unambiguously supporting a misspelling. Apparently not.
 * The only definition we have either from outside sources or with unambiguous citations is the neologistic one for a digital object that can be rendered into 3(4?)-dimensional physical form. All of the cites above, except the one from 2014, precede the rise of the digital->3-d sense, so they cannot be generalizations of that sense. It seems wildly implausible that physible could be used in general usage without someone suggesting a definition nearby, as it is a formation that violates normal morphology. The explanation that would best satisfy Occam would be that it is a misspelling that for some reason happens more readily in India than elsewhere. If physible had appeared in some Indian works on philosophy or spiritualism, I could have accepted the definition under challenge, but that is not the case. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it's feasible with the spelling altered by folk etymology. It probably arose in India because first-language English-speakers would probably think of physible as rhyming with visible, or perhaps sizable, and there are a lot of second-language speakers in India. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially with DCDuring's comments. The citations seem to be meaning (and misspelling) feasible. By my ken, the "able to be made physical" since fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RFV failed per DCDuring. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)