Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:Grand Orient Freemasonry. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:Grand Orient Freemasonry, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:Grand Orient Freemasonry in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:Grand Orient Freemasonry you have here. The definition of the word Talk:Grand Orient Freemasonry will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:Grand Orient Freemasonry, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
I'm not definitely saying it should be deleted, but Dan Polansky has suggested that most of the entries I created were bad and this seem like it might be another irrelevant since Freemasonry is not really very relevant, knowing about specific branches of it maybe is not worthy of inclusion in a dictionary. Any opinions on whether this entry should stay?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It's a term, somebody might want to know what it means, and one can't figure that out from just looking at it. Also, we kept Snickers. _Korn (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Keep, I think. By what rationale in WT:CFI would it be deleted?
I wouldn't devote effort to creating such an entry. I might even get annoyed that someone else devotes effort to them. But that doesn't mean they should be deleted. DCDuringTALK22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
CFI line 1: "This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and idiomatic." We go to the section on idiomaticity, which says "An expression is idiomatic if its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." Going on that alone, what else am I to say? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well you could remind everyone that virtually all proper nouns are arbitrary signs and that, therefore, the proper names that are combinations or arbitrary signs are also arbitrary. Those that are combinations of ordinary words, eg, White House, British Telecom, or are single words given an opaque meaning, eg, Pentagon, also have meaning that are not apparent from the ordinary words they consist of. DCDuringTALK23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
In general I am not thrilled with the idea of having the names of specific organisations (except perhaps really famous ones like the Red Cross); it feels like something for Wikipedia. However, non-commercial organisations can't really fail WT:BRAND. Equinox◑22:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
The non-profit rationale doesn't work for many US non-profit organizations (USAA, AARP, Ocean Spray, PBS, credit unions, labor unions) engage in activities that for-profit organizations engage in commercial activities (insurance, banking; insurance, lobbying; agricultural packaging and marketing; banking; broadcasting, including advertising; pension and insurance; respectively), not to mention transportation facility management, education, water, gas, telecommunications, and electricity supply; broadcasting and advertising.
In my humble opinion the only good reasons to have CFI are to prevent Wiktionary from being fed words not in general usage and from being abused for advertisement. Other than that, No Paper. Nothing wrong with making an entry and adding the Wikipedia link. Also, since it seems I wasn't understood: Please don't tell people how much you dislike their entries, even though these entries are validated by the site's policy. There's nothing to be gained from virtually kicking people. _Korn (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
