Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Continuity IRA. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Continuity IRA, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Continuity IRA in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Continuity IRA you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Continuity IRA will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Continuity IRA, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
At the very least, this should survive inclusion as an abbreviated or informal name of the organisation. Its full term in Continuity Irish Republican Army.--Dmol23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
No one has yet even seriously proposed that organization names be added to the other encyclopedic content already here. Attributive-use citations, then, please. OR why not just include all attestable proper names? I suppose that they are much more within the capabilities of our contributors than other words. DCDuringTALK10:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I say, treat this like a brand name. I highly doubt this will garner three citations across three years using the name without providing context. bd2412T 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
moved to RFV. -- Prince Kassad00:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
RFV
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion
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.
Applying such a standard is a sensible approach to avoiding encyclopedic content in a dictionary. Political party names, like brands and company names, are similar in potential for spam as well as encyclopedic content. Not-for-profit spam seems as bad as any other kind to me. DCDuringTALK13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
RFV is not a place where you should be pushing your yet another deletionist invention. You have BP and RFD for the purpose. The term exists; there is nothing to attest. --Dan Polansky14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
This does not belong to RFV: This is not a company name, and even if it were, there is no voted-on regulation for company names. The RFV question "is this attestable" is clearly "yes". You may try to push it through RFD, where you can vote "delete". --Dan Polansky14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't say this too often, but I agree with Dan Polansky. Brand name of who? Company name? How is this a brand name more than say, Dublin or Belfast? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
All this says is "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested.". It says nothing about terrorist groups and the like. SemperBlotto15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Prince Kassad, I know of the unvoted-on paragraph on company names. What I have written still holds: "... there is no voted-on regulation for company names." --Dan Polansky16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals mentions the Red Cross, which is the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations (if I'm not mistaken). So we have the name of a company noninclusible, and the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations inclusible. This seems to fall in between those, though closer to the being the name of a company, as the abbreviated official name of an organization. (Technically, a company, in one sense of company, but I'm not sure whether that's the sense meant in the CFI.) If it comes to a show of hands, I say to exclude it per the company-name rule, based on the two points that (a) it technically is a company and (b) even if that's not the sense of company meant in the CFI, an organization is similar enough to a company to be governed by the same rule.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Comment.Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Company names is not terribly well phrased, but I take it to mean that company names aren't included, period. (More precisely, I think it's saying that if a company name is also a family name, then that's included; and if a company name is also a common word, then that's included. So we include Disney as a surname, and fox as a common noun, but we don't include them as company names.) Therefore, the statement that it "Needs citations that meet the company name CFI" seems like another way of saying "Needs to be deleted after a month", because there simply is no such thing as a citation that meets the company name CFI. Right? It would be like listing a word here as "Needs citations that meet the protologism CFI", or "Needs citations that meet the NISOP CFI." —RuakhTALK19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
