"

 Are redlinks bad form? 
 regarding the Co-Freemasonry article: 

I was under the impression that redlinks in articles were quite acceptable, as long as they point to (nonexistent) articles on notable subjects that could or should be created. I could reinstate the links and create stubs for them all, but that would involve quite a bit of work; isn't the point that redlinks serve as useful signposts for others who might be able to contribute material? I'd like to put at least some of the redlinks back in...

In fact, I've just done a quick search and found Wikipedia:Red link, which agrees with what I thought. I'll add the redlinks back, checking as I go to make sure they're all notable and desirable articles. ☻ 

Check it, Fuzz: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. I agree, not all of them exactly need to be removed, but there's too many. Check policy, determine what should be linked, & relink it...:-)  

Righto, I have checked it, and I stick by my position. None of the redlinks should be removed. They are all relevant to the article. Please excuse me if I'm being dense, but which particular redlinks do you believe are irrelevant? Some of the blue-linked dates should be unlinked (those not containing both month and day, as per Wikipedia:Dates); apart from that, the links in the article are fine. ☻ 

Whatev's...;~) the idea of leaving many red links in is to give people an idea of articles which should probably be created, especially in a newly-created article. If they stay too long, &/or the article becomes long-of-tooth, then they should almost always be removed. Obviously, do as you feel best. I'm for sure not going to express too much care, not there...  

Thank-you for your comments. I'm not too worried now. I've run roughshod over people in the past, and I know how easy it is to do. At the moment I'm probably in danger of running roughshod over some of the people who claim to be Wiccan but have no initiatory lineage. Just as you don't consider Co-Freemasons to be Freemasons, I don't consider them to be Wiccan. The thing is, everyone editing here is doing so because there's a subject that's important to them, so there are bound to be disagreements. I feel like we're all on the same side, though, ultimately: our goal is to establish truth (or rather the wikipedia equivalent, verifiability), regardless of how many of our preconceived opinions are sacrificed in the process. ☻ 

 Freemasonry category stuff 

Grye - Just took a look at the stuff you have been doing on the Freemason/citation project (your proposed templates etc.) ... WOW.  Thanks for what was obviously a lot of hard work.  

 FRS 

If you're adding the categories, you should add the postnominals, too: Sir Forname Surname, FRS. Thanks.  
I thought about that, but 1)I'm burnt on this... & 2).. I'm burnt on this, worried about people whining, & figured that'd be easy to do from Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. maybe another time...;-)  
Wait, what do you mean: at the top, by their name, or in the Cat: listing?  

 Freimaurer32 

I don't watch the Obligations page, but the gist of the discussion was that we can't ascertain the validity of what's in Duncan, so if it's missing for the moment, it's really not a huge issue.  I don't like that article because it's not really an ""article""; it's just some nonsense to get a sort of OMG!!!! MASONIC SECRETZ!!!!!1111 reaction and push people's buttons, as it doesn't discuss so much as reproduce verbatim, and the only reason that article is not gone due to copyvio is because it's almost 200 years out of date and not subject to copyright law.

Furthermore, given the circumstances under which Hanuman Das left Wikipedia (an Arbcom case that also involved all his buddies who voted on the last Jahbulon AfD, funnily enough, including Frater Xyzzy), I'm not tempted to put much stock in an ""article"" like that, and if we can't think of anything else to say about them other than to reproduce historical examples that have no modern