Talk:copy-pasto
RFV discussion: February–March 2020
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
"An accidental text error caused by the incorrect copying and pasting copying and pasting of material on a computer." So basically a copy-paste typo. Couldn't find in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- One can attest it with the mailing list archives of free-and-open-source projects (which are durable, because the existence of such software is not negotiable – as the source codes of certain kernels and their main distributions and browsers etc. are kept for centuries in the future to gaze at, so are the mailing lists; they have until now just rarely been used on Wiktionary for no reason other than little tech affinity). Examples (too late for me to format now): 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7. Spelling varies between copy-pasto, copy+pasto, copy/pasto, copy&pasto – I am for taking the first and hard-redirecting the others, we don’t have copy & paste and copy + paste though we have copy and paste either. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Anything durably archived? I don't buy the "software is durably archived because something something negotiable since (i) that doesn't even make sense to me and (ii) even if it made sense it isn't Wiktionary policy. We can of course create a Citations page in the interim. Equinox ◑ 15:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Equinox I mean if these software projects (Linux, GNU, Debian) do not exist anymore it is the end of the world as we know it anyway; and their disappearance is even more out of question than Wikimedia not existing anymore. Thus they are durable. It is Wiktionary policy already, without being explicitly mentioned (because it would not be easy to define: Of course not every code project hosted in public can be held durable safely but for some it must be so because the internet depends on them). Fay Freak (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Anything durably archived? I don't buy the "software is durably archived because something something negotiable since (i) that doesn't even make sense to me and (ii) even if it made sense it isn't Wiktionary policy. We can of course create a Citations page in the interim. Equinox ◑ 15:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- When I was 17 I made some video games for Windows. Suppose that my game has a special word in it, and today I put it on GitHub. Does it become CFI-attestable? Probably not because nobody is using, downloading, or quoting it. But how can we tell it apart from the cool popular projects like Firefox etc.? Presumably only because that speech and writing can be found elsewhere. I don't think GitHub means a damn thing. Equinox ◑ 02:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)