Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry/citation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project. |
| NA | This non-article page has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale. |
|
Freemasonry To-do:
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Freemason Template
+ Sample, Code, etc for the Template
{{Template:Freemason
|Lodge1 =
|Lodge2 =
|Lodge3 =
|Initiated =
|Passed =
|Raised =
|Source1 =
|Source2 =
}}
[edit] Citation & List pages
- A page/list of Freemasons
- A page created for verification of said Freemasons on wikipedia
- A Catagory, w/many subcats, for Freemasons
- List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland
- Other Masonic members:
[edit] Template discussion
[edit] Solve:
If no data, sometimes enter "unknown" or somesuch Grye 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's details, like adding space for other Lodge affiliations, PM dates, KT. SR, Shriners, degrees & affiliations, etc, but I'm learning by destruction here... Grye 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] original statement
- I've worked, I think alot, on this subject in the past. I've recently noticed that a LOT of people listed don't have verification (nothing new), & a lot of the people listed w/ & w/o verification, aren't cat'd on their page. It's nearly a moot point, since most anyone could put anything down, & unless someone cares enough, and then actually checks w/ the Lodge, it's by an honor-system, which... is what it is.
But. the (hopefully not just my) issue is, the multitude of pages listing Freemasons, shown above, & the problems which arise.
The verification page needs to be more integral to the listing [article &/or catagory(ies)] page(s). I am willing to do a lot of this work, but need concensus on the structure. The current system (listing at Freemasons article, w/ a trusted to be citation in the citation article) has proven itself ineffectual for quite some time now.
- Should Verification Citations be at:
- The discussion pages of the catagories the article sends to?
- i.e. for Buzz Aldrin, "Category talk-American Freemasons"?
- The main discussion page for Category-Freemasons by nation (would become huge)
- The discussion pages of the catagories the article sends to?
A primary problem is that the catagory should not be placeable w/o citation, & chasing down citations will get very tedious very fast w/o a central, &/or logical, location (& will so, even then!).
It's actually an interesting note on a possible problem of Wikipedia: a Catagory inclusion is actual encyclopedic content, but without a system for citation! Humph...
Maybe also, a (an automated) notation added that a person who has had a Freemason catagory added to their page is in fact cited/cerified?
Or, ideally, if possible (?), the addition of a "...Freemason" catagory goes to another page, until approved as verified, & that verification listed somwhat as it is on the now existing page but now on the Freemason-country discussion page , then the person is listed on the catagory article page? That would actually be pretty good, but couldn't be up to one person...
I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but something should really be sorted out, because the current system isn't working, & as the articles & their catagories become more compex, so does the problem.
Grye 07:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Move Cites to article's talk page?
What about simply adding a citation to the Person's (Article's) talk page? It would not allow for inclusion of Freemasons without an article, & would probably cause the removal of the Talk:List of Freemasons/citation & Talk:List of Freemasons pages, as they'd be redundant, & after removal of people with this info in their article, the list would become a stub.
Also, the "American Freemason" (etc) tag at the bottom can be quickly authenticated by going to the talk page of the same article (not the other 2 vague pages listed above), as it can from the page, follow the links to the person's article > the talk page, & thus the citation.
further, citation would not be needed here: Category talk:American Freemasons
I don't know if the talk page is an appropriate place, Vs. the main article page. Any thoughts?
Grye 00:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
| Freemasonic History | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Lodge Affiliation: | |
| Blue Lodge History |
