This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FYI... there were errors in the template. You used the article List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England as a section header, and placed all the various articles about Grand Lodges under that heading. But some of these articles are about Grand Lodges and Grand Orients that are NOT recognized by UGLE. I have deleted those article links that pointed to Grand Lodges that are not recognized. If you want to add these back, you will have to come up with a broader section title (Perhaps "Various Grand Jurisdictions" or something). Blueboar 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This template is a bad idea - there are things here that have nothing to do with anything else, and it has no connection to half the articles it is in. I will give this further thought, but a TfD is likely. MSJapan 23:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The divisions make no sense. At best this should be a number of smaller templates for different articles (for example, a GL template only for GL articles, and appendant template for only appendant articles, etc.), but as it is not such in its current form, I have stripped out all the minor material. MSJapan 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAICT, the original version of this template was merely listing every article in Category:Freemasonry... which is what the category is for anyway. Unless someone has a good sugggestion for what a Template:Freemasonry can be used for that isn't allready covered by the category or other templates, I support an TfD. WegianWarrior 07:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

TfD works for me. Blueboar 15:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the idea of deleting this template to be presumptuous, preposterous even. There currently exists no other template for navigation between Freemasonry-related articles, hence why it was created in the first place. Plus, aren't templates made for navigation between related articles in the first place? Maybe it needs editing (even though I disapprove of the length to which it was done, namely the stripping of important categorizations such as History), but deletion? I see no basis for the argument (and NO. "This template has errors" does not make for a good argument since they can be edited.) -- Toussaint 19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues here ... first, I have to ask why we need a template at all? People can use the Category or Project page link to navagate between articles. (It only involves one more step.) Second, many of the things you categorized as being related are not realy related at all (for example, many of the articles you categorized under History are not really history articles). To some extent, the template was forcing a categorization of articles that doesn't really exist. Third, I think that the issue of whether we need a template, how it should be set up and categorized, and which articles fit where are better discussed on the Project page first... that's why it is there. Blueboar 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see some value in a smaller templates which focus on a particular area, the initial version of this one was probably destined to be too big, in attempting to be comprehensive in capturing an extremely complex set of relationship it would have been too unwieldy and failed to capture the subtlety of the topic.

It probably needs some time spent to come up with an architecture, looking at appropriate divisions of material and coming up with a limited family.

ALR 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see. If it needs to be re-implemented through WikiProject discussion (and maybe a set of templates rather than just one), then I won't mind a deletion/replacement. -- Toussaint 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new template (Template:Freemasonry2) for navigation within Freemasonry pages. It was based off of the Template:Christianity. I would like to see this new one replace the current Template:Freemasonry if at all possible. The navigation for this one is cleaner and easily accessible.-- Zef 00:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this a lot ... a few tweeks are needed for what articles should and should not be included, but that is a minor detail. I recommend that we consider using this for all of the Freemasonry pages. Blueboar 14:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd really prefer your continuing to use the bottom-box template. Side templates are a real pain in the behind to work images around. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Freemasonry Project has switched to template2 for all of our articles, should we delete this to avoid confusion? Blueboar 13:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)