User talk:Noprimenumbers

All you need to know is here is in the following welcome links. SemperBlotto 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Attestation
I don't know for sure whether demanufacture currently meets WT:CFI. It is simply a question of whether it is has been in use long enough in each sense given in its entry as shown by its use in durably archived sources. As a practical matter, the convenient durably archived sources are Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar, and Usenet. We prefer the sources that do not require any kind of subscription. See the talk pages for, , , and for a way to get quotes into the right format. If you don't get it right, someone will probably fix it anyway. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also for a newish term like this, we need quotes that don't include "demanufacture" in quotes. It needs to be used in running text, preferably without requiring a definition at its first use in the document cited. Otherwise terms that a small group of authors invent or define idiosyncratically could gain entry despite their lack of real use. That may mean that the best source would be something written for a technical audience or for green insiders. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking into the above. Should durable sources also include usage in governmental documents that are open to public review? Of course only those documents that can be identifiable as endurable for use in rule making. If not authoritative a definition should be as close to being authoritative as possible. Noprimenumbers 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps to avoid the need to make invidious comparisons between governments with respect to their reliability and permanence, and their willingness to fund "permanent" archiving, we don't seem to take any document lodged on any government site as durably archived. I think this may be an inheritance from WP. So for this purpose, I wouldn't rely on government documents for attestation, though they might be useful to illustrate certain aspects of usage. This is a description of our current attitude and practice as I understand it, but, as I write this I wonder whether I am right and whether the same conditions apply now as when the practice evolved. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at it that way... Even though there are written records from past governments it is through the scholar that these records gain a permanence. It would take far more work than desirable to qualify a single governmental record as durable. So using a governmental document should be relegated to showing a practice of usage at the most.
 * The only possible exception could be where one governmental body is considered as being authoritative on a subject by general consensus. I am sorry I have no examples to show for this.Noprimenumbers 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)