Talk:Grand Orient Freemasonry
Latest comment: 8 years ago by BD2412 in topic RFD discussion: May–June 2015
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
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)
- 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)
- 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. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It sucks but DCDuring's right. Keep since I can't think of a deletion rationale. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Are you two somehow out to break PaulBustion's heart? Korn (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- We have loads of amateur lexicographers but obviously need more amateur semioticians. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- Are you two somehow out to break PaulBustion's heart? Korn (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- It sucks but DCDuring's right. Keep since I can't think of a deletion rationale. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- I have never understood what makes PBS and AARP inclusion-worthy, but not CNN, and AIG. Or Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, but not the King Ranch. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- On a bit of a tangent, things that are initialisms/abbreviations may be worth including for that separate reason. Equinox ◑ 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- That occurred to me as I was composing my comment. I agree, but we do a terrible job on such abbreviations and I don't detect much enthusiasm for improving those entries. In this and so many other regards we have eyes bigger than our stomach. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- That occurred to me as I was composing my comment. I agree, but we do a terrible job on such abbreviations and I don't detect much enthusiasm for improving those entries. In this and so many other regards we have eyes bigger than our stomach. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- On a bit of a tangent, things that are initialisms/abbreviations may be worth including for that separate reason. Equinox ◑ 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Abstain. Name of an organization, governed by WT:CFI#Names of specific entities; thus, per CFI it is up to the judgment of editors. I would expect that those who, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names, argued that we should avoid having Royal Dutch Shell would vote delete on this one. As for my considerations, it is not a single-word proper name so I am less inclined to oppose its deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 21:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)