Talk:socioëconomic

Request for verification
Only 3 results from Google. Has anyone else encountered this peculier form of socioeconomic? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 00:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Never. SemperBlotto 08:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I’ve found four citations of its use. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I believe ya. Keep. It's peculiar, but there is no reason to proscribe something apparently still in use. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a vote. It still lacks attestation from durably archived sources. One source not accessible without $. Two from blogs. One (the second) needs a page reference as Adobe Reader search doesn't find it (probably because of the skewed scan). (If only these energies could be used for Good.) DCDuring TALK 13:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1985 and 2002 citations are from durably-archived source (though the 2005 and 2007 ones are not). This will be difficult to attest, since b.g.c. sucks so very much at picking up diacritics. (BTW, what’s your last, parenthetic sentence about?) †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO typographic concerns are waste of time and energy for the project. I'd be happier, too, not to feel compelled to follow up on the work of a veteran contributor to establish such points as the validity of the citations for attestation. Presentation of non-durably archived uses as if they were does not bolster one's credibility. I am disinclined to simply accept the word of someone who persistently pushes what is effectively a PoV (that typography is of importance to wiktionary) that does not seem to have much support. Specifically, I cannot accept that the citation concealed behind the pay barrier has a diaeresis. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. I am taking time to introspect in re the typography issue. Please help by explaining the distinction between the lexical and the typographical, with especial focus on the long ess and ligatures. In re the 1985 cite, you can see it hereat . †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I can be as constructive as I would like to be. I am reacting negatively to many of the contributions in this area that you make, but it is visceral. I usually check to see whether the spelling seems prima facie attestable, but would not lift a finger to attest such attestation myself under any circumstances. Continue on your talk page? DCDuring TALK 18:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The newly-provided html version of the 2002 document reveals the citation to be one of six usages of "socioeconomic" in the doc, and that the others do not use the diaeresis. Pingku 17:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, Pingku. I checked the same place (page 17) in the .pdf version, and found that the HTML diæresis is a scanno; the original has only . I’ve moved the citation from to the undiacriticked spelling. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Two more to go. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the relevance of price to view? I mean, if collectively we doubt the one claiming the cite exists, that's one thing, but surely that's not true in . &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that we followed a practice like WP of not linking to or depending on links to pay sites. Using them would mean that only a privileged few were really able to assess the veracity of our assertions. It's all part of getting the resources we get for free. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All other things being equal, a free resource is preferable to a charged one; however, all other things are rarely equal. For example, in the case of the OED, it can only be accessed with a charge (at least in theory); however, this does not mean we should eschew it as a reference, because its authority is incomparable. In the case of citations, the ideal is that they be easily verifiable (such as by clicking a link provided to a b.g.c. page image); however, if our sources are few and all are necessary for attestation, then we cannot throw them out simply because it isn’t free to check them for oneself. †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed; deleted. Citations moved to their namespace. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)