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