Talk:uncopyrightables

Bogus secondary sources given instead of citations of use. --Connel MacKenzie 18:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. it's not bogus. It just is not obvious how to format a use where it is in the title of the article cited. That said, it is not often used. I can find only the two quotations (one ordinary, one title only) that indicate meaning. There are probably more in some unavailable legal works (decisions?). In a slighly more lax attestation regime, an inflected form of an attested lemma would make it, particularly since a close relative, "copyrightables", is also attested. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me out. I couldn't seem to find much else. Teh Rote 23:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Now cited. —Ruakh TALK 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)