Aren't you Supposed to provide ThreeExamples to ProveApattern ?

''Which is fine provided those three aren't all thinking about same speculative article/PhD thesis/idea someone had down the pub. Ideally, they'd be thinking of three (possibly commercial) separate uses.''

Or rather, isn't a pattern supposed to ''emerge from'' three or more observed repeating solutions?
----
This page was linked/created from CommunityLifeCycle, which does refer to three separate projects. Though not necessarily commercial, after all there's MoreToLifeThanShopping.

''CommunityLifeCycle looks like a good start on a pattern language to me.''
----
As similar, though much more nearly trivial schema applies to the creation of Wiki pages:

	*the first person provides the ProposedWikiWord?  
	*Someone seconds it by creating the page by click on the link and asking for clarification ( SecondAsksForClarification )
	*the third person tries to explain if it smells familiar ( ThirdPersonExplains ). 
	*and the FirstPersonVerifies?

This may be a expression of an UnwrittenRule, WikiWiki does have them you know.
Of course UnwrittenRule''''''s have value, they are usually useful heuristics. For instance this page seems to have an UnwrittenRule that contributions should be unsigned and that NonLinearEditing is OK.

''Which is cool. The protocol described above is (as given) far, far too trivial for general use in finding patterns, however.''

See also: ThingsInThrees, DefinitionOfPattern